# Eiropas Savienības C 258/2006

| | ISSN 1725-5201 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 49. sējums2006. gada 26. oktobris |

ISSN 1725-5201

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

49. sējums2006. gada 26. oktobris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Informācija |
| | Komisija |
| 2006/C 258/1 | Euro maiņas kurss | 1 |
| 2006/C 258/2 | Dalībvalstu paziņotās informācijas kopsavilkums par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību | 2 |
| 2006/C 258/3 | Dalībvalstu paziņotās informācijas kopsavilkums par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību | 8 |
| 2006/C 258/4 | Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 6. panta 2. punktu Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 510/2006 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu un cilmes vietu nosaukumu aizsardzību | 13 |
| 2006/C 258/5 | Dalībvalstu sniegtā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2001. gada 12. janvāra Regulu (EK) Nr. 70/2001 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu, sniedzot valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| 2006/C 258/6 | Dalībvalstu sniegtā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2002. gada 12. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 2204/2002 par Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu nodarbinātībai (
  1
  ) | 21 |
| 2006/C 258/7 | Komisijas paziņojums par to, kā īsteno Padomes 1988. gada 3. maija Direktīva 88/378/EEK par dalībvalstu tiesību aktu tuvināšanu attiecībā uz rotaļlietu drošību (
  1
  ) | 23 |
| 2006/C 258/8 | Iepriekšējs paziņojums par koncentrāciju (Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4314 — Johnson & Johnson/Pfizer Consumer Healthcare) (
  1
  ) | 25 |
| 2006/C 258/9 | Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju (Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4405 — Walter Frey Holding/Mitsubishi Motors Europe) (
  1
  ) | 26 |
| 2006/C 258/0 | Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju (Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4294 — Arcelor/SNCFL/CFL Cargo) (
  1
  ) | 26 |
| | EIROPAS EKONOMISKĀ ZONA |
| | EBTA Tiesa |
| 2006/C 258/1 | EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes 2006. gada 31. jūlija prasība pret Norvēģijas Karalisti (Lieta E-2/06) | 27 |
| | EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde |
| 2006/C 258/2 | Uzaicinājums saskaņā ar Nolīguma par Uzraudzību un Tiesu 3. protokola I. daļas 1. panta 2. punktu iesniegt piezīmes par Norvēģijā ierosināto jauno shēmu finanšu atbalsta piešķiršanai nesamaksātam darbam pētniecības un attīstības pasākumos (Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme) | 28 |
| 2006/C 258/3 | Uzaicinājums saskaņā ar Nolīguma par Uzraudzību un Tiesu 3. protokola I. daļas 1. panta 2. punktu iesniegt piezīmes par Norvēģijas Pētniecības Padomes piešķirto valsts atbalstu saistībā ar datorprogrammu Turborouter | 42 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

I   Informācija

Komisija

2006/C 258/1

Euro maiņas kurss

1

2006/C 258/2

Dalībvalstu paziņotās informācijas kopsavilkums par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību

2

2006/C 258/3

Dalībvalstu paziņotās informācijas kopsavilkums par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību

8

2006/C 258/4

Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 6. panta 2. punktu Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 510/2006 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu un cilmes vietu nosaukumu aizsardzību

13

2006/C 258/5

Dalībvalstu sniegtā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2001. gada 12. janvāra Regulu (EK) Nr. 70/2001 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu, sniedzot valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem (
  1
  )

1

17

2006/C 258/6

Dalībvalstu sniegtā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2002. gada 12. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 2204/2002 par Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu nodarbinātībai (
  1
  )

1

21

2006/C 258/7

Komisijas paziņojums par to, kā īsteno Padomes 1988. gada 3. maija Direktīva 88/378/EEK par dalībvalstu tiesību aktu tuvināšanu attiecībā uz rotaļlietu drošību (
  1
  )

1

23

2006/C 258/8

Iepriekšējs paziņojums par koncentrāciju (Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4314 — Johnson & Johnson/Pfizer Consumer Healthcare) (
  1
  )

1

25

2006/C 258/9

Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju (Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4405 — Walter Frey Holding/Mitsubishi Motors Europe) (
  1
  )

1

26

2006/C 258/0

Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju (Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4294 — Arcelor/SNCFL/CFL Cargo) (
  1
  )

1

26

EIROPAS EKONOMISKĀ ZONA

EBTA Tiesa

2006/C 258/1

EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes 2006. gada 31. jūlija prasība pret Norvēģijas Karalisti (Lieta E-2/06)

(Lieta E-2/06)

27

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde

2006/C 258/2

Uzaicinājums saskaņā ar Nolīguma par Uzraudzību un Tiesu 3. protokola I. daļas 1. panta 2. punktu iesniegt piezīmes par Norvēģijā ierosināto jauno shēmu finanšu atbalsta piešķiršanai nesamaksātam darbam pētniecības un attīstības pasākumos (Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme)

Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme

28

2006/C 258/3

Uzaicinājums saskaņā ar Nolīguma par Uzraudzību un Tiesu 3. protokola I. daļas 1. panta 2. punktu iesniegt piezīmes par Norvēģijas Pētniecības Padomes piešķirto valsts atbalstu saistībā ar datorprogrammu Turborouter

Turborouter

42

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ |

---

(1)   Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

I Informācija

Komisija

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/1

---

Euro maiņas kurss (1)

2006. gada 25. oktobris

(2006/C 258/01)

1 euro=

| | Valūta | Maiņas kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | ASV dolārs | 1,2580 |
| JPY | Japānas jēna | 149,93 |
| DKK | Dānijas krona | 7,4551 |
| GBP | Lielbritānijas mārciņa | 0,6702 |
| SEK | Zviedrijas krona | 9,2125 |
| CHF | Šveices franks | 1,5916 |
| ISK | Islandes krona | 85,71 |
| NOK | Norvēģijas krona | 8,338 |
| BGN | Bulgārijas Ieva | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Kipras mārciņa | 0,5766 |
| CZK | Čehijas krona | 28,383 |
| EEK | Igaunijas krona | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Ungārijas forints | 262,87 |
| LTL | Lietuvas lits | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvijas lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltas lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polijas zlots | 3,8855 |
| RON | Rumānijas leja | 3,5179 |
| SIT | Slovēnijas tolērs | 239,6 |
| SKK | Slovākijas krona | 36,576 |
| TRY | Turcijas lira | 1,8475 |
| AUD | Austrālijas dolārs | 1,6561 |
| CAD | Kanādas dolārs | 1,4191 |
| HKD | Hongkongas dolārs | 9,7905 |
| NZD | Jaunzēlandes dolārs | 1,9038 |
| SGD | Singapūras dolārs | 1,9784 |
| KRW | Dienvidkorejas vons | 1 202,46 |
| ZAR | Dienvidāfrikas rands | 9,6349 |
| CNY | Ķīnas juaņa renminbi | 9,9407 |
| HRK | Horvātijas kuna | 7,385 |
| IDR | Indonēzijas rūpija | 11 485,54 |
| MYR | Malaizijas ringits | 4,625 |
| PHP | Filipīnu peso | 62,837 |
| RUB | Krievijas rublis | 33,83 |
| THB | Taizemes bats | 46,691 |

Valūta

Maiņas kurss

USD

ASV dolārs

1,2580

JPY

Japānas jēna

149,93

DKK

Dānijas krona

7,4551

GBP

Lielbritānijas mārciņa

0,6702

SEK

Zviedrijas krona

9,2125

CHF

Šveices franks

1,5916

ISK

Islandes krona

85,71

NOK

Norvēģijas krona

8,338

BGN

Bulgārijas Ieva

1,9558

CYP

Kipras mārciņa

0,5766

CZK

Čehijas krona

28,383

EEK

Igaunijas krona

15,6466

HUF

Ungārijas forints

262,87

LTL

Lietuvas lits

3,4528

LVL

Latvijas lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltas lira

0,4293

PLN

Polijas zlots

3,8855

RON

Rumānijas leja

3,5179

SIT

Slovēnijas tolērs

239,6

SKK

Slovākijas krona

36,576

TRY

Turcijas lira

1,8475

AUD

Austrālijas dolārs

1,6561

CAD

Kanādas dolārs

1,4191

HKD

Hongkongas dolārs

9,7905

NZD

Jaunzēlandes dolārs

1,9038

SGD

Singapūras dolārs

1,9784

KRW

Dienvidkorejas vons

1 202,46

ZAR

Dienvidāfrikas rands

9,6349

CNY

Ķīnas juaņa renminbi

9,9407

HRK

Horvātijas kuna

7,385

IDR

Indonēzijas rūpija

11 485,54

MYR

Malaizijas ringits

4,625

PHP

Filipīnu peso

62,837

RUB

Krievijas rublis

33,83

THB

Taizemes bats

46,691

---

(1)

Datu avots: atsauces maiņas kursu publicējusi ECB.

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/2

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotās informācijas kopsavilkums par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību

(2006/C 258/02)

XA numurs: XA 42/06

Dalībvalsts: Spānija

Reģions: Navarra

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: Atbalsts izsekojamībai lauksaimniecības pārtikas nozarē Navarrā 2006. gadā

Juridiskais pamats: Orden foral del Consejero de agricultura, ganadería y alimentación, por la que se establecen las bases reguladoras que regirán la concesión de ayudas a la trazabilidad en la industria agroalimentaria de Navarra y se aprueba la convocatoria de ayudas para el año 2006

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: 1 800 000 EUR 2006. saimnieciskajam gadam no attiecīgās 2007. gada izdevumu budžeta pozīcijas

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 50 % no tehniskā atbalsta izmaksām izsekojamības sistēmu izstrādei un ieviešanai, ne vairāk kā 6 000 EUR vienam saņēmējam

35 % no ieguldījumu izmaksām reģistrēšanas un datu pārraides sistēmu datorizācijai un automatizācijai, ne vairāk kā 15 000 EUR vienam saņēmējam

Īstenošanas datums: 2006. gada augusts

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Atbalstu var piešķirt līdz 2006. gada novembrim (ieskaitot)

Atbalsta mērķis: Šā atbalsta mērķis ir veicināt izsekojamības sistēmu ieviešanu Navarras MVU, kas darbojas lauksaimniecības pārtikas nozarē.

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Attiecīgā nozare ir pārstrādes un tirdzniecības nozare. Attiecīgās apakšnozares var būt visas minēto nozaru apakšnozares, ar nosacījumu, ka tās aptver Līguma I pielikumā minētos lauksaimniecības produktus, izņemot piena un piena produktu aizstājēju ražošanu un tirdzniecību un izņemot pārstrādes un tirdzniecības darbības cukura nozarē

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Gobierno de Navarra. Departamento de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación. |
| --- |
| c/ Tudela 20 |
| E-31003 Pamplona |

Gobierno de Navarra. Departamento de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación.

c/ Tudela 20

E-31003 Pamplona

Tīmekļa vietne: www.navarra.es

Cita informācija: Pamplonā, 2006. gada 24. maijā

XA numurs: XA 44/06

Dalībvalsts: Nīderlande

Reģions: Frīzlandes province

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: Diever (ģimene)

Juridiskais pamats: Algemene wet bestuursrecht, titel 4.2

Algemene Subsidieverordening Provincie Friesland 1998

Provinciewet artikel 145

Verordening met betrekking tot het verlenen van subsidies ten behoeve van het plattelandsbeleid voor de jaren 2005-2008

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie ikgadējie izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: Atbalsta maksimālā summa ir 45 000 EUR. Paredzams, ka 80 %, t.i., 36 000 EUR, tiks izmaksāti 2006. gadā, bet atlikusī atbalsta daļa — 2007. un ne vēlāk kā 2008. gadā

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte ir 40 % no subsidējamām izmaksām. Atbalsta maksimālā summa ir 45 000 EUR

Īstenošanas datums: Rīkojums par subsīdijas piešķiršanu stāsies spēkā četru nedēļu laikā pēc tam, kad ES būs apstiprinājusi šā paziņojuma saņemšanu

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Noteiktais izmaksāšanas termiņš ir 30 mēneši pēc rīkojuma izdošanas, t.i., līdz 2008. gada beigām. Domājams, ka projekts būs pabeigts jau 2007. gadā

Atbalsta mērķis: Projekta mērķis ir saglabāt ainavā vēsturisku lauku saimniecību pēc tās pielāgošanas, lai to varētu izmantot modernai agrārajai saimniekošanai

Tiek piemērots Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 5. panta 3. punkts

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Piena lopu audzēšana

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Provincie Friesland |
| --- |
| Postbus 20120 |
| 8900 HM Leeuwarden |
| Nederland |

Provincie Friesland

Postbus 20120

8900 HM Leeuwarden

Nederland

Tīmekļa vietne: www.fryslan.nl

XA numurs: XA 47/06

Dalībvalsts: Francija

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums: Atbalsts tehniskai palīdzībai siltumnīcā audzētu augļkopības, dārzeņkopības un dārzkopības nozares produktu ražošanai

Juridiskais pamats: Le décret no 83-246 du 18 mars 1983 portant création d'un Office National Interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l'horticulture et les textes subséquents repris notamment dans la partie réglementaire du code rural (livre 6 “productions et marchés” — articles R 621-120, R 621-134, R 621-140 et R 621-161 à R 621-174)

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi: Plānoto pasākumu paredzamie izdevumi sastāda 1 miljonu EUR

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: Līdz 50 % no attaisnotām izmaksām.

Kopējā valsts atbalsta summa katram saņēmējam nedrīkst pārsniegt 100 000 EUR trīs gadu laikā vai 50 % no attaisnotām izmaksām, vērā ņem lielāko summu

Īstenošanas datums: Shēmu īstenos pēc tam, kad saņems apstiprinājumu par saņemšanu ar pasākuma identifikācijas numuru, ar nosacījumu, ka ir pieejami attiecīgie līdzekļi, un ka shēmu publicēs VINIFLHOR tīmekļa vietnē

Atbalsta shēmas ilgums: Viens gads ar iespēju pagarināt paredzētā budžeta ietvaros

Atbalsta mērķis: Šī atbalsta shēma ir saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 14. pantu.

Tā ir daļa no siltumnīcu produkcijas strukturālās pielāgošanas plāna, kura mērķis ir nodrošināt to saimniecību vajadzības, kuras ražo siltumnīcu produkciju un saskaras ar pieaugošiem energoizdevumiem, un kurām vajadzīgs atbalsts to centienos pielāgoties.

Paredzētie tehniskās palīdzības pasākumi palīdz saimniecībām pielāgoties enerģijas cenu pieaugumam, pēc konkrēto apstākļu noteikšanas, virzot uz iespējamu labāku tehnisko un pārvaldes izvēli.

Projekts ļaus finansēt 50 % no tehniskā atbalsta un padomdevēju izmaksām saistībā ar šo tehniski saimniecisko un enerģētikas diagnostiku:

saimniecību izdevumu posteņu, jo īpaši enerģijas, tehniski saimnieciskais novērtējums un priekšlikumu par uzlabojumiem izstrāde (atbilstošais atbalsts līdz 50 % no diagnostikas izmaksām, nepārsniedzot EUR 300 katrai saimniecībai),

energopārbaudes, vajadzības gadījumā nepieciešamo ieguldījumu novērtējums (šis atbalsts līdz 50 % no pārbaudes izmaksām, nepārsniedzot EUR 0,3 par apsildāmās platības m2 un līdz 3,5 ha).

Attiecīgās nozares: augļkopības, dārzeņkopības un dekoratīvās dārzkopības nozares siltumnīcu produkcija

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Office National Interprofessionnel des Fruits, des Légumes, des Vins et de l'Horticulture |
| --- |
| 164, rue de Javel |
| F-75739 Paris Cedex 15 |

Office National Interprofessionnel des Fruits, des Légumes, des Vins et de l'Horticulture

164, rue de Javel

F-75739 Paris Cedex 15

Tīmekļa vietne: www.oniflhor.fr

XA numurs: XA 48/06

Dalībvalsts: Francija

Reģions: Limuzēna

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums: Atbalsts “bioloģiskās lauksaimniecības” sertifikācijas saglabāšanai (atbalsta XA/54/05 turpināšana)

Juridiskais pamats:

| — | Article 13 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 du 23 décembre 2003 de la Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 13 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 du 23 décembre 2003 de la Commission;

| — | Articles L. 1511-1 et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles L. 1511-1 et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales;

| — | Décision du Conseil régional du Limousin du 10 mai 2006 |
| --- | --- |

—

Décision du Conseil régional du Limousin du 10 mai 2006

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi: 85 000 EUR

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: Reģionālā padome uzņemas daļu no sertifikācijas izmaksām, proti, subsīdijas 80 % apmērā no sertifikācijas vienības izmaksām (bez PVN) no EUR 200 līdz EUR 800 2006. gadā

Īstenošanas datums: No dienas, kad saņem Eiropas Komisijas apstiprinājumu par saņemšanu

Atbalsta shēmas ilgums: Līdz 2006. gada 31. decembrim

Atbalsta mērķis: Padomes Regula (EEK) Nr. 2092/91 nosaka, ka visus bioloģiskās lauksaimniecības nozares uzņēmējus jāpārbauda un jāsertificē Lauksaimniecības ministrijas pilnvarotai sertifikācijas organizācijai saskaņā ar standartu (EN 45011). Šī atbalsta mērķis ir atbalstīt bioloģiskās lauksaimniecības attīstību, sedzot saimniecību sertifikācijas izmaksas

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Katrs Limuzēnas lauksaimnieks, kurš nodarbojas ar bioloģisko ražošanu un kurš 2006. gadā paziņojis par savu darbību kā “bioloģisko lauksaimniecību” vai par “pārorientēšanos uz bioloģisko lauksaimniecību”, un kurš uz 2005. gada 1. jūliju nav saņēmis pārorientēšanās atbalstu (CTE-CAB1 vai CAD2-CAB) vai kura pieprasītā atbalsta CTE vai CAD/CAB (par 5 gadiem) kopsumma vai sertifikācijas atbalsts ir mazāks par 15 000 EUR. Par bioloģisko lauksaimniecību obligāti jāziņo aģentūrā Bio. Atbalsta summu pārbaudīs, pamatojoties uz līguma CTE/CAD/CAB kopiju

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Monsieur le Président du Conseil Régional du Limousin |
| --- |
| 27 boulevard de la Corderie |
| F-87031 Limoges Cedex |

Monsieur le Président du Conseil Régional du Limousin

27 boulevard de la Corderie

F-87031 Limoges Cedex

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.cr-limousin.fr rubrique “guide des aides”

XA numurs: XA 52/06

Dalībvalsts: Apvienotā Karaliste

Reģions: Anglija

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: EBLEX Beef Better Returns Programme

Juridiskais pamats: Section 1 of the Agriculture Act 1967

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: 0,402 miljoni GBP gadā

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 100 %

Īstenošanas datums:

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Atbalsta shēmas darbība beidzas 2009. gada 30. jūnijā. Tomēr atbalsta shēmas noteikumi var tikt grozīti pirms šā datuma, lai iekļautu tajos iespējamās izmaiņas Eiropas valsts atbalsta noteikumos

Atbalsta mērķis: Atbalsta vispārējais mērķis ir izglītot liellopu audzētājus un veidot tiem iemaņas pielāgoties tirgus attīstībai. Pasākumiem, par kuriem panākta vienošanās, iekļauj mācības, seminārus un tīmeklī atrodamo attiecīgo informāciju. Tas ir saskaņā ar 14. pantu — Tehniskā atbalsta nodrošināšana lauksaimniecības nozarē

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Liellopu audzēšana

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Meat and Livestock Commission |
| --- |
| PO Box 44 |
| Winterhill House |
| Snowdon Drive |
| Milton Keynes MK6 1AX |
| United Kingdom |

Meat and Livestock Commission

PO Box 44

Winterhill House

Snowdon Drive

Milton Keynes MK6 1AX

United Kingdom

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.eblex.org.uk/betterReturns/beef

Cita informācija: Tehniskā atbalsta sniedzējus izraudzīsies un atalgos Gaļas un liellopu komisija ar tās Liellopu gaļas nozares izpildkomitejas (EBLEX) palīdzību saskaņā ar tirgus principiem un nediskriminējošā veidā/bez diskriminācijas. Atbalstu neizmaksās tieši saņēmējiem. Tiks piemērotas konkursa procedūras saskaņā ar Kopienas tiesību aktiem.

Parakstīts un datēts Vides aizsardzības, pārtikas jautājumu un reģionālo lietu departamenta vārdā (Apvienotās Karalistes kompetentā iestāde)

Neil Marr

Agricultural State Aid Advisor

Defra

8B 9 Millbank

c/o 17 Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

United Kingdom

XA numurs: XA 54/06

Dalībvalsts: Nīderlande

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: Atbalsta shēma bioloģiskās ražošanas veicināšanai

Juridiskais pamats: Artikelen 2 en 4 van de Kaderwet LNV-subsidies

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: izdevumi ir saistīti ar izmaksām, kas uzņēmumiem rodas, pakļaujot savu darbību kontroles iestādes īstenotai uzraudzībai atbilstīgi 8. panta 1. punktam Padomes Regulā (EEK) Nr. 2092/91 par lauksaimniecības produktu bioloģisku ražošanu un norādēm par to uz lauksaimniecības produktiem un pārtikas produktiem. Pamatojoties uz minētās regulas 9. pantā noteikto, šī kontroles iestāde uzrauga to, kā tiek ievērotas minētajā punktā norādītās prasības. Šīs izmaksas dažādos gados var būt atšķirīgas. 2006. gadā atbalsta summa vienam uzņēmumam ir EUR 650 (pamata summa) un EUR 150 (piemaksa ar kontroli saistīto izdevumu segšanai). Šī summa subsidēšanas periodā var palielināties analogi tam, kā pieaug izmaksas saistībā ar uzņēmuma darbības pakļaušanu kontrolei. Ņemot vērā to, ka piecu gadu ilga laika posma vidējās izmaksas uz vienu uzņēmumu gadā ir aptuveni EUR 800, piecu gadu laikā atbalsta summa gadā būs apmēram EUR 24 000

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: ar uzņēmuma darbības pakļaušanu kontrolei saistīto izmaksu kompensācijas summa nedrīkstēs pārsniegt EUR 3 000 vienam uzņēmumam gadā

Īstenošanas datums: no 2006. gada 1. janvāra

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: ar uzņēmuma darbības pakļaušanu kontrolei saistīto izmaksu kompensāciju piešķirs piecus gadus

Atbalsta mērķis: atbalsts maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem un augstas kvalitātes lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanas un noieta veicināšana, kā noteikts 13. pantā Kopienas pamatnostādnēs par valsts atbalstu lauksaimniecības nozarē. Par augstas kvalitātes produktiem uzskata produktus, kas ražoti atbilstīgi Padomes Regulas (EEK) Nr. 2092/91 prasībām. Kompensācija par uzņēmumu izmaksām saistībā ar uzņēmuma darbības pakļaušanu kontrolei. Tiem uzņēmumiem, kas ražošanu veic atbilstīgi Regulas (EEK) Nr. 2092/91 prasībām, dalība kontroles sistēmā, kā noteikts minētās regulas 9. pantā, var būt stimuls šāda veida ražošanas turpināšanai

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): uzņēmumi, kuri ražo lauksaimniecības produktus, kas nav paredzēti lietošanai pārtikā; arī bioloģisko produktu — koku, augu, puķu un puķu sīpolu — audzētāji

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Dienst Regelingen |
| --- |
| Postbus 20401 |
| 2500 ER Den Haag |
| Nederland |

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Dienst Regelingen

Postbus 20401

2500 ER Den Haag

Nederland

Tīmekļa vietne: www.wetten.nl of www.overheid.nl > officiële publicaties > selecteren departementale regelgeving Staatscourant > invoeren titel regeling: Subsidieregeling voortzetting biologische productiemethode

Cita informācija: saskaņā ar šo shēmu atbalstu bioloģiskās ražošanas veicināšanai piešķir visiem lauksaimniekiem, kas praktizē bioloģisko saimniekošanas metodi. Atbalstu šādiem lauksaimniekiem, kas ražo patēriņam pārtikā paredzētus produktus, piešķir saskaņā ar VI.a nodaļas II sadaļu Padomes 1999. gada 17. maija Regulā (EK) Nr. 1257/99 par Eiropas Lauksaimniecības virzības un garantiju fonda (ELVGF) atbalstu lauku attīstībai un dažu regulu grozīšanu un atcelšanu (OV L 160, 26.6.1999., 80. lpp.). Saistībā ar to Nīderlandes Karalistes valdība 2005. gada beigās iesniedza prasību veikt grozījumus Nīderlandes 2005. gada Lauku attīstības programmā. Tā kā saskaņā ar minēto prasību atbalstu nevar saņemt lauksaimnieki, kuri ražo bioloģiskos produktus, kas nav paredzēti lietošanai pārtikā, šajā ziņojumā norādītā atbalsta mērķa grupa ir šādi lauksaimnieki

XA numurs: XA 58/06

Dalībvalsts: Francija

Reģions: Indras un Luāras departaments

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums: Atbalsts apdrošināšanas prēmiju maksājumiem pret krusas bojājumiem jūtīgām augu kultūrām

Juridiskais pamats:

| — | Article 11 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 de la Commission |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 11 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 de la Commission

| — | Loi 64.706 du 10 juillet 1964 |
| --- | --- |

—

Loi 64.706 du 10 juillet 1964

| — | Article L 361-8 du livre III (nouveau) du code rural |
| --- | --- |

—

Article L 361-8 du livre III (nouveau) du code rural

| — | Article L 122.7 du code des assurances |
| --- | --- |

—

Article L 122.7 du code des assurances

| — | Décret no 2006-370 fixant les modalités d'application de l'article L.361-8 du livre II (nouveau) du code rural en vue de favoriser le développement de l'assurance contre certains risques agricoles et notamment son article 7 |
| --- | --- |

—

Décret no 2006-370 fixant les modalités d'application de l'article L.361-8 du livre II (nouveau) du code rural en vue de favoriser le développement de l'assurance contre certains risques agricoles et notamment son article 7

Atbalsta shēmas plānotie gada izdevumi: 80 000 EUR

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 10 % no apdrošināšanas prēmiju summas vai no 2006. gadā veiktajām iemaksām augļu koku kultūrām, ko veido koki un krūmi, dārzeņi—augļi, lapu dārzeņi un 4 % no apdrošināšanas prēmiju summas vai 2006. gadā veiktajām iemaksām citām jūtīgām augu kultūrām: vīnogas un ziedi

Īstenošanas datums: 2006. gads

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Viens gads

Atbalsta mērķis: Rosināt tos lauksaimniekus, kam nav finansiālu iespēju apdrošināties pret vairākiem klimatiskiem riskiem, kas ļautu saņemt daļējas valsts atbalsta apdrošināšanas prēmijas, apdrošināties vismaz pret krusas bojājumiem

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Augļu ražošana augļu kokos, krūmos, dārzeņi-augļi, lapu dārzeņi, vīnogas un ziedi

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Conseil Général d'Indre-et-Loire |
| --- |
| Place de la Préfecture |
| F-37927 Tours Cedex 9 |

Conseil Général d'Indre-et-Loire

Place de la Préfecture

F-37927 Tours Cedex 9

Tīmekļa vietne: www.cg37.fr

XA numurs: XA 59/06

Dalībvalsts: Nīderlande

Reģions: Ziemeļbrabantes province

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums: Noteikumi atbalsta piešķiršanai saskaņā ar Ziemeļbrabantas lauksaimniecības jauninājumu koordinācijas grupas (Stuurgroep Landbouw Innovatie Noord-Brabant Beleidsregels — saīsināti Stuurgroep LIB) vienošanos

Juridiskais pamats: Algemene subsidieverordening Provincie Noord-Brabant.

Tiesīgi pretendēt uz atbalstu ir pieteikumi, kas atbilst Regulas (EK) 1/2004 prasībām

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi: Saskaņā ar Ziemeļbrabantas lauksaimniecības jauninājumu koordinācijas grupas vienošanos Ziemeļbrabantas province lauksaimniecības veicināšanai ik gadu piešķir kopā 481 460,81 EUR. No tiem 113 445,05 EUR tiek piešķirti tieši bioloģiskās lauksaimniecības veicināšanai

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: Valsts finansētā atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte (procentuālā daļa no ieguldījuma, kas pretendē uz atbalstu) ir 40 %. Attiecībā uz ieguldījumiem, kuru rezultātā tiek aizsargāta un uzlabota vide, šī procentuālā daļa var būt par 10 % vai 20 % lielāka

Piešķirtais atbalsts uz vienu subsīdijas pieprasījumu nepārsniedz 35 000 EUR gadā

Īstenošanas datums:

Atbalsta shēmas darbības ilgums: Līdz 2008. gada 1. janvārim. Nepieciešamības gadījumā atbalsta shēmu pēc Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 pārskatīšanas pielāgos attiecīgajiem noteikumiem. Par to tiks sniegts paziņojums Komisijai

Atbalsta mērķis: Atbalsta shēmas mērķis ir veicināt integrētu uz projektiem balstītu jauninājumu ieviešanu lauksaimniecībā un dārzkopībā ar mērķi uzlabot vides un ūdens kvalitāti, kā arī teritoriālo un ekonomisko struktūru Ziemeļbrabantas provincē. Galvenie labuma guvēji no šā atbalsta ir mazie uzņēmumi, kas ražo, pārstrādā un tirgo lauksaimniecības produktus. Praktiski tas nozīmē, ka atbalstīti tiks neliela mēroga uz projektiem balstīti pasākumi, kas saistīti ar jauninājumiem un kuros pēc iespējas veicinošāk mijiedarbojas ekonomiskie, ekoloģiskie un kultūrsociālie aspekti.

Darbības, kuras var atbalstīt Ziemeļbrabantas lauksaimniecības jauninājumu koordinācijas grupa, ir

Tirgus pētījumi un kvalitatīvu produktu izstrāde, lai veicinātu to ražošanu un tirdzniecību (Regulas(EK) Nr. 1/2004 13. pants).

Atbalsts zināšanu radīšanai un nodošanai lauksaimniekiem un uzņēmumu darbiniekiem ar ražotāju sanāksmju palīdzību, konsultantu piesaistīšanai, pagaidu informatīvo materiālu (raksti, bukleti, internets) izstrādei un izplatīšanai (Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 14. pants).

Ieguldījumi nekustamā īpašumā, materiālos, konsultantu piesaistīšanā, pētījumos (priekšizpētē) un sadarbības apvienībās ar mērķi samazināt ražošanas izmaksas, pilnveidot un pārvietot ražošanu, paaugstināt produktu kvalitāti, uzlabot dzīvnieku labturības apstākļus un dabisko vidi (Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 4. pants).

Ieguldījumi nekustamā īpašumā, materiālos, konsultantu piesaistīšanā un pētījumos (priekšizpētē) ar mērķi uzlabot pārstrādi un tirdzniecību, kā arī situāciju saistībā ar vidi, pārtikas kvalitāti un dzīvnieku labturību (Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 7. pants)

Attiecīgās nozares: Shēma principā attiecas uz visām lauksaimniecības un dārzkopības ražošanas (lopkopības un augkopības) nozarēm. Ar to saistītie posmi lauksaimniecības pārtikas ķēdēs (piegādātāji, pircēji un mazumtirdzniecība) projektos tiek iesaistīti tikai tad, ja tas vajadzīgs pamatnozares stiprināšanai

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Brabant |
| --- |
| Brabantlaan 1 |
| Postbus 90151 |
| 5200 MC 's-Hertogenbosch |
| Nederland |

Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Brabant

Brabantlaan 1

Postbus 90151

5200 MC 's-Hertogenbosch

Nederland

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.brabant.nl/Werken/Landbouw.aspx

XA numurs: XA 60/06

Dalībvalsts: Apvienotā Karaliste

Reģions: Likuma par Skotijas sīksaimniekiem (Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993) 61. iedaļā minētās Skotijas grāfistes, kurām tradicionāli raksturīga darbība sīksaimniecības

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums: Crofting Counties Agricultural Grants Scheme (Lauksaimniecības dotāciju shēma grāfistēm, kurām raksturīga darbība sīksaimniecībās)

Juridiskais pamats: Nosaukums: Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 (sections 42(1), (2) and (3). Also 46 (4)

“Lai atbalstītu un pilnveidotu lauksaimniecisko sīkražošanu, ministrs pēc apspriešanās ar Komisiju un ar Valsts Kases apstiprinājumu var izveidot shēmas dotāciju un aizdevumu piešķiršanai sīksaimniekiem”.

Turklāt tiks sagatavots jauns normatīvais instruments, ar kuru pilnvaros piemērot shēmas noteikumus

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi: 2006–2007: 3,16 miljoni GBP

2007–2008: 2,40 miljoni GBP

Kopā: 5,56 miljoni GBP

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 50 % mazāk labvēlīgos reģionos (MLR)

40 % pārējos reģionos (reģionos, kas nav MLR)

Īstenošanas datums:

Atbalsts shēmas ilgums: Atbalsta shēmas darbība sākas 2006. gada 21. jūlijā, un tā ilgs līdz 2009. gada 31. martam. Taču var gadīties, ka pirms šā termiņa nāksies grozīt shēmas noteikumus, lai ievērotu izmaiņas Eiropas noteikumos par valsts atbalstu

Atbalsta mērķis: Tā kā sīksaimnieku ģimenes bieži vien veido lielāko vietējās sabiedrības daļu, ir būtiski šajos ekstensīvi apsaimniekotajos un attālajos Skotijas reģionos saglabāt sīksaimniecības, lai tādējādi iedzīvotājus atturētu no reģiona pamešanas. Sīksaimniecībās apsaimniekojamā zeme vieno sīksaimniekus, un veicināšana apsaimniekot lauksaimniecības zemi, no tās gūstot labumu, aptur iedzīvotāju skaita samazināšanos. Sīksaimnieki cīnās ar trūkumiem, ar kuriem nesaskaras citi ES ražotāji, piemēram, klimatu, nomaļu atrašanās vietu un nabadzīgu augsni. Ar šo shēmu cenšas atrast veidu, kā sīksaimniekiem palīdzēt attīstīt uzņēmējdarbību un uzlabot ilgstpējību tālākā perspektīva. Tā kā tas ir ieguldījums sīksaimniecībā, kas ir lauku saimniecība, tas atbilst 4. pantam attiecībā uz ieguldījumiem lauku saimniecībās

Attiecīgā nozare: Lauksaimniecība

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department |
| --- |
| Rural Communities Division |
| Area 1D |
| Pentland House |
| 47 Robbs Loan |
| Edinburgh EH14 1TY |
| United Kingdom |

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

Rural Communities Division

Area 1D

Pentland House

47 Robbs Loan

Edinburgh EH14 1TY

United Kingdom

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.crofterscommission.org.uk/documents/060508CCAGS_GUIDANCE_NOTES.pdf

Cita informācija: Papildu un sīkāka informācija par atbilstību shēmai un tās noteikumi atrodami iepriekš minētajā tīmekļa vietnē.

Parakstīts un datēts Vides aizsardzības, pārtikas jautājumu un reģionālo lietu departamenta vārdā (Apvienotās Karalistes kompetentā iestāde)

Neil Marr

Agricultural State Aid Advisor

Defra

8E 9 Millbank

c/o 17 Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

United Kingdom

XA numurs: XA 61/06

Dalībvalsts: Spānija

Reģions: Basku zeme

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: Atbalsta shēma lauksaimnieku grupām, kas ražo pārtikas kartupeļus un sēklas kartupeļus, kuri nav paredzēti cietes ražošanai

Juridiskais pamats: Orden del Consejero de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, pendiente de publicación, por la que se procede a la convocatoria de ayudas a las Agrupaciones de Productores Agrarios de Patata de consumo y de siembra, prevista en el Decreto 13/2004, de 20 de enero

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: Kopējie valsts līdzekļi, ko paredzēts piešķirt atbalsta saņēmējiem kopumā, 2006. gadā ir 150 000 EUR

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: Saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 10. pantu atbalsts ir īslaicīgs, tā apmērs pakāpeniski samazinās, un tas nepārsniedz 100 % no pirmā gada attaisnotajām izmaksām; jebkurā gadījumā atbalsta apjoms, kas piešķirts vienai ražotāju grupai, nedrīkst pārsniegt 100 000 EUR

Īstenošanas datums: Nākamajā dienā pēc tam, kad Boletín Oficial del País Vasco publicēts uzaicinājums pieteikties dotāciju saņemšanai

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Līdz 2006. gada 31. decembrim

Atbalsta mērķis:

| — | Atbalsts tiek piešķirts, pamatojoties uz 10. pantu Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību (publicēta Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī2004. gada 3. janvārī.) Šis atbalsts sedz attaisnotos izdevumus, kas minēti šā panta 3. punktā. |
| --- | --- |

—

Atbalsts tiek piešķirts, pamatojoties uz 10. pantu Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību (publicēta Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī2004. gada 3. janvārī.) Šis atbalsts sedz attaisnotos izdevumus, kas minēti šā panta 3. punktā.

| — | Primārais mērķis: Atbalstīt šā produkta ražotāju grupas, kuru dalībnieki pārdod minēto produkciju saskaņā ar iekšējiem noteikumiem, ko grupa izstrādājusi šādā nolūkā. |
| --- | --- |

—

Primārais mērķis: Atbalstīt šā produkta ražotāju grupas, kuru dalībnieki pārdod minēto produkciju saskaņā ar iekšējiem noteikumiem, ko grupa izstrādājusi šādā nolūkā.

| — | Attaisnotie izdevumi: piemērotu telpu īre par tirgus cenu, aprīkojuma iegāde, administratīvā personāla izmaksas, pieskaitāmās izmaksas, kā arī juridiskās un administratīvās izmaksas |
| --- | --- |

—

Attaisnotie izdevumi: piemērotu telpu īre par tirgus cenu, aprīkojuma iegāde, administratīvā personāla izmaksas, pieskaitāmās izmaksas, kā arī juridiskās un administratīvās izmaksas

Attiecīgā(-s) nozare(-s): Lauksaimniecība (ražotāju grupas)

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Dirección de Agricultura y Ganadería |
| --- |
| Departamento de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación del Gobierno Vasco |
| c/ Donostia — San Sebastian, 1 |
| E-01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz |

Dirección de Agricultura y Ganadería

Departamento de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación del Gobierno Vasco

c/ Donostia — San Sebastian, 1

E-01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.euskadi.net/bopv

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/8

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotās informācijas kopsavilkums par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību

(2006/C 258/03)

XA numurs: XA 53/06 (b)

Dalībvalsts: Nīderlande

Reģions: Limburgas province

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: Stādaudzētava “Kwekerij Litjens” (kompensācija, lai segtu pārmērīgi augstas izmaksas saistībā ar arheoloģisko izpēti un izrakumiem Horstā/Meterikā)

Juridiskais pamats: Artikel 4:23 lid 3 onderdeel d Algemene wet bestuursrecht. Besluit van Gedeputeerde Staten d.d. 16 mei 2006

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma individuālais atbalsts: 80 000 EUR

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 80 000 EUR

Īstenošanas datums: 2006. gada 16. maijs. Maksājumus veic, ņemot vērā Vispārējā administratīvajā likumā (Algemene wet bestuursrecht) noteikto iespēju iesniegt iebildumus un datumu, kad Eiropas Komisija ir publicējusi paziņojumu Oficiālajā Vēstnesī

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: 50 % no subsīdijas piešķir avansā. Pēc projekta pabeigšanas izmaksā pārējos 50 %

Atbalsta mērķis: Atbilstīgi Likuma par teritoriālo plānošanu (Wet op de Ruimtelijke Ordening) 19. pantam un saskaņā ar valstī un provincē spēkā esošajām prasībām veicot priekšizpēti saistībā ar rīkojumu paplašināt siltumnīcu kompleksu Horstā-Meterikā, tika atklāta arheoloģisku atradumu vieta. Tā ir tik īpaša, ka ir nepieciešams to atrakt. Atrakšanas izmaksas nav proporcionālas šīs privātuzņēmuma iniciatīvas ieguldījumu izmaksām un aprēķinātajai peļņas normai.

Zemes izlīdzināšana un pamatu izbūve kultūrslānī rada tādas plaisas, ka atlikusī informācija kļūst nesakarīga un līdz ar to mazinās tās arheoloģiskā vērtība. Pati atradumu vieta Limburgas provincei noteikti ir unikāla, un pēc Litjens ģimenes pasūtījuma tā ir jāatrok. Raugoties no šāda viedokļa un ņemot vērā faktu, ka saglabāt atradumu tā pašreizējā atrašanās vietā nav iespējams (skat. tālāk), ir nolemts veikt atrakšanu.

Uz šo brīdi aprēķinātās atrakšanas izmaksas ir EUR 160 000 (bez PVN). Parasti tā nav neatrisināma problēma projekta iesniedzējam vai municipalitātei, jo izmaksas var tikt kompensētas ar zemes un dzīvojamās platības cenām. Šajā gadījumā ir runa par privātpersonu jeb maza uzņēmuma īpašnieku (paprikas audzētāju), kura peļņas norma nav pietiekama atrakšanas izmaksu segšanai (ieņēmumu zudums arheoloģisko izrakumu veikšanas rezultātā). Raugoties no šāda viedokļa un ņemot vērā to, ka arheoloģisko atradumu vieta Limburgai noteikti ir unikāla, Limburgas province un Horst aan der Maas municipalitāte ir nolēmušas piešķirt atbalstu izrakumu veikšanai. Izmaksas sadala šādi:

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Provincie Limburg |
| --- |
| Postbus 5700 |
| 6202 MA Maastricht |
| Nederland |

Provincie Limburg

Postbus 5700

6202 MA Maastricht

Nederland

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.limburg.nl/nl/html/socrates/PSINFO/Openbare %20besluitenlijsten %20GS2006/060323-0235.doc

Atbalsta Nr.: XA 73/06

Dalībvalsts: Čehijas Republika

Reģions: Vysočina

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: “Podpora poskytování technické podpory v odvětví zemědělství” (“Atbalsts tehniskās palīdzības nodrošināšanai lauksaimniecības nozarē”)

Lauksaimniecības uzņēmējs, t.i., fiziska vai juridiska persona, kuras ienākumu avots ir lauksaimnieciskā ražošana, ko savā vārdā un uz savu atbildību, un ienākuma gūšanas nolūkā īsteno kā pastāvīgas un neatkarīgas uzņēmējdarbības veidu.

Juridiskas vienības, kas nav izveidotas uzņēmējdarbības nolūkā, t.i., nevalstiskas asociācijas, bezpeļņas sabiedrības vai juridisko personu interešu grupas

Juridiskais pamats:

| 1. | Zákon č. 129/ 2000 Sb., o krajích (krajské zřízení), ve znění pozdějších předpisů |
| --- | --- |

1.

Zákon č. 129/ 2000 Sb., o krajích (krajské zřízení), ve znění pozdějších předpisů

| 2. | Zákon č. 250/2000 Sb., o rozpočtových pravidlech územních rozpočtů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů |
| --- | --- |

2.

Zákon č. 250/2000 Sb., o rozpočtových pravidlech územních rozpočtů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů

| 3. | Zákon č. 252/ 1997 Sb., o zemědělství, ve znění pozdějších předpisů |
| --- | --- |

3.

Zákon č. 252/ 1997 Sb., o zemědělství, ve znění pozdějších předpisů

| 4. | Program rozvoje kraje Vysočina |
| --- | --- |

4.

Program rozvoje kraje Vysočina

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: Maksimālie ikgadējie izdevumi: CZK 200 000

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: Atbalsta summa: līdz 100 % no attaisnotajām izmaksām.

Uz finanšu iemaksām var pretendēt CZK 5 000 līdz CZK 200 000 lielas izmaksas uz vienu projektu.

Finanšu iemaksu maksimālā summa vienam saņēmējam/projekta turētājam ir CZK 200 000.

Kopējā finanšu iemaksu summa, ko piešķir saskaņā ar minēto pasākumu, trīs gadu laikā nedrīkst pārsniegt EUR 100 000 vienam saņēmējam

Īstenošanas datums: No 2006. gada 1. septembra

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Līdz 2006. gada 31. decembrim

Atbalsta mērķis: Atbalsts mērķis ir uzlabot uzņēmēju, kas darbojas lauksaimniecības nozarē, profesionālo kompetenci, lai paaugstinātu darbaspēka ražīgumu.

Šis atbalsts atbilst Čehijas Republikā vispārēji piemērojamiem tiesību aktiem, kā arī Vysočina reģiona Attīstības programmas mērķiem un prioritātēm. Uz atbalstu attiecas Eiropas Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību (14. pants — Tehniskā atbalsta nodrošināšana lauksaimniecības nozarē).

Par attaisnojamām izmaksām uzskata ar lauksaimniecības nozari saistītu konkursu un izstāžu organizēšanas izdevumus, tostarp palīdzību, kas saistīta ar izmaksām par izstādes dalībnieku piedalīšanos minētajos pasākumos; ar lauksaimniecības nozari saistītu kursu, semināru vai darbsemināru organizēšanas izdevumus; izdevumus par lauksaimniecības uzņēmēju konsultēšanu tehnoloģijas un ekonomikas jautājumos

Attiecīgā nozare: Lauksaimniecība

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Krajský úřad kraje Vysočina |
| --- |
| Žižkova 57 |
| CZ-587 33 Jihlava |

Krajský úřad kraje Vysočina

Žižkova 57

CZ-587 33 Jihlava

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.kr-vysocina.cz/

Cita informācija: Vysočina reģionālā iestāde apliecina, ka tiks izpildīti Komisija Regulā (EK) Nr. 1/2004 izklāstītie nosac ījumi, t.i., atbalstu vērsīs uz maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, un ka stingri ievēros regulā noteikto finansiālo ierobežojumu

XA numurs: XA 74/06

Dalībvalsts: Francija

Reģions: Département de Saône-et-Loire

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums: Ilgtspējīgas un videi draudzīgas politikas attīstība

Juridiskais pamats:

| — | Art. L 3231-2 et subséquents du Code général des collectivités territoriales permettant aux collectivités territoriales d'accorder des aides pour favoriser le développement économique |
| --- | --- |

—

Art. L 3231-2 et subséquents du Code général des collectivités territoriales permettant aux collectivités territoriales d'accorder des aides pour favoriser le développement économique

| — | Art. L. 1511-2 du Code général des collectivités territoriales |
| --- | --- |

—

Art. L. 1511-2 du Code général des collectivités territoriales

| — | Délibération du Conseil général du 15.12.2006 |
| --- | --- |

—

Délibération du Conseil général du 15.12.2006

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi: 100 000 EUR ikgadējo izdevumu (maksimums)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte:

| Darbības nosaukums | Attaisnoto izdevumu veids | Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi
  euro (bez nodokļiem) | Vispārējā režīma bāzes likme |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Komposta ražošana saimniecībā | Komposta ražošanas un uzglabāšanas novietne ar izplūdes reģenerāciju | 20 000 | 20 % |
| Biodegvielas izmantošanas attīstība | Prese- raušu ražošanas iekārtu aprīkojums — lauksaimniecības tehnikas pielāgošana degvielas izmantošanai | 10 000 | 30 % |
| Lietus ūdens uzkrāšana un izmantošana | Instrumenti un jaunas uzglabāšanas iekārtas ar sūkni (sūknis nav iekļauts) | 5 000 | 20 % |

Darbības nosaukums

Attaisnoto izdevumu veids

Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi

euro (bez nodokļiem)

Vispārējā režīma bāzes likme

Komposta ražošana saimniecībā

Komposta ražošanas un uzglabāšanas novietne ar izplūdes reģenerāciju

20 000

20 %

Biodegvielas izmantošanas attīstība

Prese- raušu ražošanas iekārtu aprīkojums — lauksaimniecības tehnikas pielāgošana degvielas izmantošanai

10 000

30 %

Lietus ūdens uzkrāšana un izmantošana

Instrumenti un jaunas uzglabāšanas iekārtas ar sūkni (sūknis nav iekļauts)

5 000

20 %

Īstenošanas datums: No brīža, kad 2006. gadā no Eiropas Komisijas saņem apstiprinājumu par saņemšanu

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Septiņi gadi ar nosacījumu, ka Eiropas tiesību akti tiek mainīti un budžetā ir pieejami līdzekļi

Atbalsta mērķis: Lai labāk saglabātu apkārtējo vidi atbalsta atbalsta mērķis ir uzlabot lauku saimniecību praksi:

veicinot komposta ražošanu uz vietas saimniecībās, kas ļautu izmantot saimniecības fermentējamus atkritumus, kā arī lauku apvidos saražotos zaļos atkritumus;

attīstot saimniecībā saražotās un vēlāk tai pašā lauksaimniecībā patērētas biodegvielas izmantošanu;

ieviešot atbalstu lietus ūdens uzkrāšanai un uzglabāšanai nepieciešamo instrumentu un iekārtu un sadales sūkņu iegādei, lai iedrošinātu lauksaimniekus ietaupīt līdzekļus, uzkrājot un izmantojot lietus ūdeni, (lai saimnniecībās kontrolētu iekārtu mazgāšanai nepieciešamā ūdens patēriņu).

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Visas lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanas nozares

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL GÉNÉRAL DE SAÔNE-ET-LOIRE |
| --- |
| Direction de l'Équipement rural et de l'agriculture |
| Service des Affaires Agricoles |
| Espace Duhesme — 18, rue de Flacé |
| F-71026 Macon Cedex 9 |

MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL GÉNÉRAL DE SAÔNE-ET-LOIRE

Direction de l'Équipement rural et de l'agriculture

Service des Affaires Agricoles

Espace Duhesme — 18, rue de Flacé

F-71026 Macon Cedex 9

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.cg71.com

XA numurs: XA 75/06

Dalībvalsts: Francija

Reģions: Département de Saône-et-Loire

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums: Koplietošanas tehnikas iegāde

Juridiskais pamats:

| — | Art. L 3231-2 et subséquents du Code général des collectivités territoriales permettant aux collectivités territoriales d'accorder des aides pour favoriser le développement économique |
| --- | --- |

—

Art. L 3231-2 et subséquents du Code général des collectivités territoriales permettant aux collectivités territoriales d'accorder des aides pour favoriser le développement économique

| — | Art. L. 1511-2 du Code général des collectivités territoriales |
| --- | --- |

—

Art. L. 1511-2 du Code général des collectivités territoriales

| — | Délibération du Conseil général du 15.12.2006 |
| --- | --- |

—

Délibération du Conseil général du 15.12.2006

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi: 60 000 EUR ikgadēja atbalsta (maksimums)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: Attaisnotie izdevumi: jauna tehnika

Komposta izsmidzinātāji — Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi: 22 500 EUR

vālu apgriezēji kompostam — Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi: 36 800 EUR

pļaujmašīnas ar zāli aizaugušiem vīnogulājiem — Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi: 22 500 EUR

dzīvžogu apgriezējmašīnas — Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi: 22 500 EUR

mobilie koka smalcinātāji vai frēzes — Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi: 22 500 EUR

traktori ar augsto šasiju — Maksimāli subsidējamie izdevumi: 80 000 EUR

Neiekļautie izdevumi: tehnika, kas paredzēta esošās tehnikas nomaiņai

Subsīdijas likme: 20 % izņemot traktorus ar augsto šasiju (subsīdijas likme 15 % — maksimālais apjoms 40 %, ieskaitot citus finansējuma avotus.

5 % palielinājums, ja ieguldījumā iekļauts Ieguldījuma plāns uz vismaz 3 gadiem

Īstenošanas datums: No brīža, kad no Eiropas Komisijas 2006. gadā saņem apstiprinājumu par saņemšanu

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: Septiņi gadi ar nosacījumu, ka Eiropas tiesību akti tiek mainīti un budžetā ir pieejami līdzekļi

Atbalsta mērķis: Tā kā kolektīvas lauksaimniecības darbības izrādījušās efektīvas neseno krīžu laikā, departaments vēlas uzlabot kooperatīvu (CUMA) spējas izmantot koplietošanas lauksaimniecības tehniku, ieviešot palīdzību finansējuma maksimālo likmju robežās tehnikas iegādei, kas papildina reģionālā līmeņa palīdzību. Attiecīgs aprīkojums tiks izmantots, lai uzlabotu videi draudzīgus kultivācijas apstākļus zemnieku saimniecībās.

Saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulas (EK) Nr. 1/2004 4. pantu departamenta atbalsts attiecas uz šādiem attaisnotiem izdevumiem: Komposta izsmidzinātāji, vālu apgriezēji kompostam, pļaujmašīnas ar zāli aizaugušiem vīnogulājiem, panātru dzīvžogu apgriezējmašīnas, pārnēsājamie koka smalcinātāji vai frēzes, traktori ar augsto šasiju

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Visas lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanas nozares

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL GÉNÉRAL DE SAÔNE-ET-LOIRE |
| --- |
| Direction de l'Équipement rural et de l'agriculture |
| Service des Affaires Agricoles |
| Espace Duhesme — 18, rue de Flacé |
| F-71026 Macon Cedex 9 |

MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL GÉNÉRAL DE SAÔNE-ET-LOIRE

Direction de l'Équipement rural et de l'agriculture

Service des Affaires Agricoles

Espace Duhesme — 18, rue de Flacé

F-71026 Macon Cedex 9

Tīmekļa vietne: http://www.cg71.com

XA numurs: XA 76/06

Dalībvalsts: Slovākijas Republika

Reģions: Stredné Slovensko

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: Poľnohospodárske družstvo Belá — Dulice

SK-038 11 Belá — Dulice 1; IČO: 00196452

Juridiskais pamats:

| — | Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zákona č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zákona č. 721/2004 Z. z. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zákona č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zákona č. 721/2004 Z. z.

| — | Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zákona 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci |
| --- | --- |

—

Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zákona 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci

| — | Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005 |
| --- | --- |

—

Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005

| — | Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 1/2004, 4. panta 3. punkta c) apakšpunkts |
| --- | --- |

—

Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 1/2004, 4. panta 3. punkta c) apakšpunkts

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: SKK 393 226 t.i., EUR 10 324,144 (pēc 2006. gada 3. augusta maiņas kursa)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 13,85 %

Īstenošanas datums: 2006

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: 2006. gada augusts

Atbalsta mērķis: MVU — lauksaimniecība

Attiecīgā nozare: Lauksaimniecība

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Sociálna poisťovňa, pobočka Martin |
| --- |
| Nám. SNP 4, SK-036 25 Martin |

Sociálna poisťovňa, pobočka Martin

Nám. SNP 4, SK-036 25 Martin

Tīmekļa vietne: www.socpoist.sk

XA numurs: XA 77/06

Dalībvalsts: Slovākijas Republika

Reģions: Stredné Slovensko

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: AFG, s.r.o., Dĺžiny 122/40

SK-039 18 Turčianske Teplice; IČO: 36383422

Juridiskais pamats:

| — | Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zákona č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zákona č. 721/2004 Z. z. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zákona č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zákona č. 721/2004 Z. z.

| — | Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zákona 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci |
| --- | --- |

—

Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zákona 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci

| — | Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005 |
| --- | --- |

—

Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005

| — | Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 1/2004, 4. panta 3. punkta c) apakšpunkts |
| --- | --- |

—

Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 1/2004, 4. panta 3. punkta c) apakšpunkts

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: SKK 955 843 t.i., EUR 25 095,646 (pēc 2006. gada 3. augusta maiņas kursa)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 35,5 %

Īstenošanas datums: 2006

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: 2006. gada augusts

Atbalsta mērķis: MVU — lauksaimniecība

Attiecīgā nozare: Lauksaimniecība

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Sociálna poisťovňa, pobočka Martin |
| --- |
| Nám. SNP 4, SK-036 25 Martin |

Sociálna poisťovňa, pobočka Martin

Nám. SNP 4, SK-036 25 Martin

Tīmekļa vietne: www.socpoist.sk

XA numurs: XA 78/06

Dalībvalsts: Polija

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums: Atbalsts tīrasiņu zirgu un Arābu tīrasiņu zirgu īpašniekiem, lai to zirgi piedalītos skriešanās sacīkstēs, ko organizē kā atlases sacīkstes ar nolūku zirgus kvalificēt atbilstīgi to skriešanas ātrumam un konkurētspējai, minētajam nolūkam izmantojot hipodromā notiekošajās skriešanās sacīkstēs iegūtos tieša salīdzinājuma rezultātus

Juridiskais pamats:

| 1) | Ustawa z dnia 30 maja 2005 r. o finansach publicznych (Dz.U. z 2005 r., nr 249, poz. 2104, z późn. zm.) |
| --- | --- |

1)

Ustawa z dnia 30 maja 2005 r. o finansach publicznych (Dz.U. z 2005 r., nr 249, poz. 2104, z późn. zm.)

| 2) | Rozporządzenie Ministra Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi z dnia 30 maja 2006 r. w sprawie stawek dotacji przedmiotowych dla różnych podmiotów wykonujących zadania na rzecz rolnictwa (Dz.U. z 2006 r., nr 98, poz. 683, z późn. zm.) |
| --- | --- |

2)

Rozporządzenie Ministra Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi z dnia 30 maja 2006 r. w sprawie stawek dotacji przedmiotowych dla różnych podmiotów wykonujących zadania na rzecz rolnictwa (Dz.U. z 2006 r., nr 98, poz. 683, z późn. zm.)

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: Saskaņā ar shēmu plānotie izdevumi — PLN 2 000 000

Atbalsta maksimālā summa (par atbilstīgo pozīciju, kurai tas piešķirts): PLN 820

Īstenošanas datums: Pēc tam, kad no Eiropas Komisijas būs saņemts identifikācijas numurs un apstiprināts, ka Eiropas Komisija ir saņēmusi informācijas kopsavilkumu par atbalstu, ko piešķir saskaņā ar šo shēmu

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: No 2006. gada augusta trešās dekādes līdz 2006. gada decembrim

Atbalsta mērķis: Saskaņā ar 14. panta 2. punkta d) apakšpunkta i) daļu Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulā Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību, atbalstu piešķir 2006. gada dalības maksas segšanai, lai atlases sacīkstēs nodrošinātu pietiekamu dalībnieku skaitu. Tā kā šogad nebija iespēju izvēlēties organizatoru zirgu skriešanās sacīkstēm Służewiec hipodromā (Varšava), kuram būtu atļauts organizēt totalizatoru, tika apdraudētas 970 zirgu atlases sacensības. Minētajās skriešanās sacīkstēs, kas ir viens no zirga vērtības noteikšanas elementiem, piedalās noteiktas vecumgrupas zirgi, un tās veido pamatu zirgu kvalifikācijai vaislas procesā. Zirgi, kuriem nav minētā novērtējuma, faktiski ir zuduši vaislai. Lai no tā izvairītos, Służewiec hipodromā nolēma organizēt tikai zirgu atlases sacīkstes, t.i., bez ieejas biļetēm un totalizatora. Šajā gadījumā nākamo organizatoru pamatieņēmumus veidotu skriešanās sacīkstēm reģistrēto zirgu reģistrācijas maksa. Tas būtiski ietekmēs reģistrācijas maksas, un var izrādīties, ka 2006. gada atlases sacīkstēm reģistrēto zirgu īpašniekiem tās būs pārāk augstas.

Tāpēc, lai pārliecinātos, ka atlases sacīkstēs piedalīsies pietiekami daudz zirgu, un lai zirgu īpašniekus rosinātu zirgus reģistrēt sacīkstēm, Lauksaimniecības un lauku attīstības ministrija pieņēmusi lēmumu piešķirt atbalstu zirgu dalībai sacīkstēs, subsidējot reģistrācijas izmaksas

Attiecīgā nozare: Atbalstu piešķir saņēmējiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecību lopkopības nozarē

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi |
| --- |
| ul. Wspólna 30, PL-00-930 Warszawa |

Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi

ul. Wspólna 30, PL-00-930 Warszawa

Tīmekļa vietne: Lauksaimniecības un lauku attīstības ministrijas rīkojums, ar ko nosaka minētā atbalsta principus, atrodams

http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/indez.html

Cita informācija:

| — | Zirga reģistrācijas maksa atlases sacīkstēm: PLN 870 |
| --- | --- |

—

Zirga reģistrācijas maksa atlases sacīkstēm: PLN 870

| — | Atbalsta bruto summa (atbalsta bruto intensitāte) aprēķināta atbilstīgi definīcijai, kas izklāstīta 2. panta 5. punktā Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulā Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību. Atbalsta bruto summa ir bruto atbalsta un reģistrācijas maksas attiecība, t.i., PLN 820/PLN 870 = 94,25 % |
| --- | --- |

—

Atbalsta bruto summa (atbalsta bruto intensitāte) aprēķināta atbilstīgi definīcijai, kas izklāstīta 2. panta 5. punktā Komisijas 2003. gada 23. decembra Regulā Nr. 1/2004 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, pārstrādi un tirdzniecību. Atbalsta bruto summa ir bruto atbalsta un reģistrācijas maksas attiecība, t.i., PLN 820/PLN 870 = 94,25 %

| — | Atbalsta shēmas budžets aprēķināts, pieņemot, ka no tā tiks segtas ne vairāk kā 2420 reģistrācijas maksas |
| --- | --- |

—

Atbalsta shēmas budžets aprēķināts, pieņemot, ka no tā tiks segtas ne vairāk kā 2420 reģistrācijas maksas

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/13

---

Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 6. panta 2. punktu Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 510/2006 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu un cilmes vietu nosaukumu aizsardzību

(2006/C 258/04)

Šis publicējums dod tiesības iesniegt iebildumus Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 510/2006 7. panta nozīmē. Iebildumi jānosūta Komisijai sešu mēnešu laikā no šīs publikācijas dienas.

KOPSAVILKUMS

PADOMES REGULA (EK) Nr. 510/2006

Reģistrācijas pieteikums saskaņā ar 5. pantu un 17. panta 2. punktu

“ARANCIA DEL GARGANO”

EK Nr. IT/PGI/005/0296/10.6.2003

ACVN ( ) AĢIN (X)

Šis kopsavilkums ir sagatavots tikai informācijai. Lai iegūtu pilnīgas ziņas, interesenti ir aicināti iepazīties ar pilnīgu produkta specifikāciju, ko var saņemt vai nu 1. iedaļā norādītajās Itālijas valsts iestādēs, vai Eiropas Komisijas dienestos (1).

1.   Atbildīgais dienests dalībvalstī

| Nosaukums: | Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali |
| --- | --- |
| Adrese: | Via XX Settembre, 20 |
| I-00187 Roma |

Nosaukums:

Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

Adrese:

Via XX Settembre, 20

I-00187 Roma

Tālr.:

06 481 99 68

Fakss:

06 42 01 31 26

e-pasts:

qtc3@politicheagricole.it

2.   Pieteikuma iesniedzēja apvienība

| Nosaukums: | Consorzio di tutela e valorizzazione «Gargano Agrumi» |
| --- | --- |
| Adrese: | Via Salita della Bella |
| I-71018 Vico del Gargano (FG) |

Nosaukums:

Consorzio di tutela e valorizzazione «Gargano Agrumi»

Adrese:

Via Salita della Bella

I-71018 Vico del Gargano (FG)

Tālr.:

0884–96 62 29

Fakss:

0884–96 63 99

e-pasts:

—

Sastāvs:

ražotāji/pārstrādātāji (X) citi ( )

3.   Produkta veids

1.6. grupa — svaigi vai pārstrādāti augļi, dārzeņi un labība

4.   Specifikācijā sniegtais apraksts (4. panta 2. punkta nosacījumu kopsavilkums)

4.1.   Nosaukums: “Arancia del Gargano”

4.2.   Apraksts: Svaigi augļi, kuri iegūti no “Biondo Comune del Gargano” ekotipu un vietējā ekotipa “Duretta del Gargano” apelsīnu kokiem un kuru vietējais nosaukums ir “arancia tosta”.

“Arancia del Gargano” galveno īpašību apraksts sniegts turpmāk.

Biondo Comune del Gargano:

augļiem ir sfēriska vai bumbierveida forma;

vairāk vai mazāk plāna, cieta, diezgan smalkgraudaina miza spilgtā zeltaini dzeltenā krāsā;

minimālais diametrs centrā — 60 mm;

minimālais iegūtās sulas daudzums, augli spiežot ar rokām, — 35 %.

Mizas baltais mīkstums ir maigs, vidēji grūti nolobāms; daiviņu ass ir neregulāra, vidēja, pusatvērta; augļa mīkstums un sula ir oranždzeltenā krāsā ar vismaz 9 % šķīstošās sausnas saturu, sulas skābuma pakāpe nepārsniedz 1,2 %, Brix grādos izteiktais cukura saturs ir vismaz 10 un gatavības indekss — Brix grādos izteiktā cukura satura attiecība pret citronskābes anhidrīda saturu — vismaz 6.

Arancia duretta:

apaļa vai ovāla forma, kas attiecīgi devusi vietējo nosaukumu “duretta tonda” vai “a viso lungo”;

miza ir gaiši oranžā krāsā ar mainīgu intensitāti, ļoti gluda un smalki kārpaina;

augļa mīkstums ir smalkšķiedrains ar mazām vakuolām, dzintarains, ar raksturīgu kraukšķīgumu, vai nu bez sēkliņām, vai to skaits ir neliels, sulas skābuma pakāpe nepārsniedz 1,2 %;

minimālais diametrs centrā — 55-60 mm;

minimālais iegūtās sulas daudzums, augli spiežot ar rokām, — 35 %;

cukura saturs ir vismaz 10 %;

Brix grādos izteiktais cukura saturs ir vismaz 11 un gatavības koeficients — Brix vērtībā izteiktā cukura satura attiecība pret citronskābes anhidrīda saturu — vismaz 6,2.

Abu aprakstīto apelsīnu šķirņu augļiem jābūt vismaz 100 g smagiem, augļa mizai jābūt ar vienmērīgu krāsojumu, augļa kātiņa pamatne ir spilgti zaļā krāsā.

“Arancia del Gargano” apelsīnus tirdzniecības tīklā laiž slēgtā cietā iesaiņojumā, kas izgatavots no augu izcelsmes materiāla, piemēram, koka vai kartona, ar tilpību no 1 kg līdz 25 kg; vismaz 80 % augļiem (papīra iesaiņojumā vai bez tā) jābūt ar logotipu “AĢIN”“Arancia del Gargano”. Arī augļiem, ko pārdod vairumtirdzniecībā, jābūt ar šo logotipu.

4.3.   Ģeogrāfiskais apgabals: Attiecīgais ģeogrāfiskais apgabals, kurā šos augļus ražo un iesaiņo, atrodas Foggia provincē (Apūlijas reģionā) un ietver Vico del Gargano, Ischitella un Rodi Garganico komūnu teritorijas jeb — precīzāk — Gargano zemesraga ziemeļu krasta joslā un tās tuvumā, kas stiepjas no Vico del Gargano līdz Rodi Garganico un līdz pat Ischitella.

4.4.   Izcelsmes apliecinājums: Visus ražošanas posmus pastāvīgi pārrauga kontroles iestāde, kuras pārziņā ir ražotāju un iesaiņotāju reģistri; tādējādi tiek nodrošināta produkta izsekojamība.

Produkta izsekojamību un izcelsmes apliecinājumu nodrošina arī visu apelsīnkoku dārzu ierakstīšana īpašā reģistrā, kuru pārvalda un atjaunina kontroles iestāde un kurā ieraksta apelsīnkoku dārza identifikācijas norādes, to nodrošina arī saražoto daudzumu paziņošana kontroles struktūrai. Visas attiecīgajos reģistros ierakstītās fiziskās vai juridiskās personas pārbauda kontroles iestāde, kā noteikts produkta specifikācijā un attiecīgajā kontroles plānā.

4.5.   Ražošanas metode: Turklāt specifikācijā paredzēts, ka apelsīnkoku stādīšana jāveic, ņemot vērā orogrāfiskos faktorus un augsnes īpašības, kas raksturīgas šai ražošanas platībai: nogāzēs ierīko terases, izmantojot sausu akmeņu sienas vai uzbērumus. Saskaņā ar tradīciju, potcelmiem izmanto vienīgi Seviljas apelsīnu koku (“melangolo” jeb Citrus mearda), kas par tādu atzīts atbilstīgos tiesību aktos.

Apelsīnkokus veido šai apgabalā tipiskajā puslodes formā ar vietējo nosaukumu “cupola”, kura zarotni veido divi galvenie zari un divi sekundārie zari, ļaujot lapotnei attīstīties apļveidīgi kvadrātveida struktūrā; šāda forma, kur iekšpusē ir tukšums, veicina aerāciju un atvieglo ražas novākšanu.

Kokus stāda tradicionālā veidā — kvadrātos ar vienu koku vidū, koku blīvumam sniedzoties no 250 līdz 400 kokiem uz vienu hektāru.

Dārzu apūdeņo no maija līdz oktobrim.

Apelsīnu raža nedrīkst pārsniegt 30 tonnas no hektāra “Biondo comune del Gargano” šķirnei un 25 tonnas no hektāra — “Duretta del Gargano” šķirnei.

Tā kā “Arancia del Gargano” šķirnes apelsīni dabiski nogatavojas pakāpeniski, nosaka šādu ražas novākšanas laiku: “Biondo comune del Gargano” šķirnes apelsīnus novāc no 15. aprīļa līdz augusta beigām; “Duretta del Gargano” šķirnes apelsīnus novāc no 1. decembra līdz 30. aprīlim.

Ražu novāc ar rokām, izmantojot šķēres. Augļu mākslīga nogatavināšana ir aizliegta.

Kā noteikts 4.3. punktā, “Arancia del Gargano” (AĢIN) iesaiņošanu veic vienīgi to ražošanas teritorijā, lai nodrošinātu produkta izsekojamību.

4.6.   Sasaiste: Šā AĢIN reģistrācijas pieteikumu pamato šā citrusaugļa neapšaubāmā reputācija. Klimatam šai citrusaugu dārzu apgabalā tiešām ir priekšrocības, kas ievērojami uzlabo augļu kvalitāti. Pirmkārt, pateicoties mēreni siltajam klimatam, nopietna patoloģija neattīstās ne augļiem, ne augļu kokiem. Otrs ar klimatu saistīts aspekts ir nogatavošanās laiks, kas jo īpaši raksturīgs Gargano citrusaugļiem — nevis janvārī, februārī vai martā, bet aprīlī un maijā līdz pat augustam, — vairākus mēnešus pēc tam, kad citrusaugļi nogatavojas visos pārējos Itālijas citrusu kultūras apgabalos. Un pēdējais tikpat svarīgs aspekts kā iepriekšējie ir “Arancia del Gargano” apelsīnu izcilā uzglabāšanās spēja, kas senāk pēc 30 līdz 40 dienu ilga pārvadājuma ļāva tos neskartus nogādāt Čikāgā vai Ņujorkā. Papildus nepārprotamajām “Arancia del Gargano” organoleptiskajām īpašībām un augļu īpašajai formai — klimata un augsnes īpašību apvienojums kultivēšanas apgabalā (sārta kaļķakmens augsne, kas bagāta ar dzelzi un mangānu, galvenokārt uz slīpām nogāzēm kalnu ielejās vai ieleju dziļumā, pakļauta aukstiem vējiem — pēkšņas temperatūras pazemināšanās cēlonim) — būtisks šā citrusaugļa izaudzēšanas un labās reputācijas faktors ir cilvēka nemitīgais darbs, pateicoties kuram laika gaitā varēja uzkrāt nozīmīgas agronomiskās zināšanas.

Jau kopš senatnes Arancia del Gargano reputācija sniedzās tālāk par apgabala robežām, un tā minēta dažādu autoru darbos, kuru vidū ir arī Gabriēle Danuncio. Kopš 1700. gada Gargano citrusaugļiem tiek veltīta nozīmīga procesija, kas joprojām notiek katru gadu februārī par godu svētajam Valentīnam, citrusaugļu dārzu aizbildnim; procesijas laikā svētī apelsīnu un citronu kokus un augļus. Saglabājies daudz ierakstu, fotogrāfiju, izkārtņu un afišu, kas liecina par neparasto slavu, ko Gargano unikālie un nepārspējamie citrusaugļi iemantojuši arī starptautiskā mērogā.

Vēstures avotos pirmās norādes par citrusu kultivēšanu šai teritorijā atrodamas jau 1003. gadā un runā par Bari princi Melo, kas, vēlēdamies pierādīt normāņiem Gargano zemes auglību un ražību, nosūtīja tiem Gargano“pomi citrini”, tas ir, Seviljas apelsīnkoka augļus jeb melangolo (rūgtais apelsīns). Septiņpadsmitajā gadsimtā Vico del Gargano un di Rodi Garganico komūnu tirdzniecības apjoms ar venēciešiem pieauga. Šī rosīgā tirdzniecība neapsīka arī līdz deviņpadsmitajam gadsimtam, un Arancia del Gargano reputācija sasniedza pārējās Eiropas valstis un Ameriku.

4.7.   Uzraudzības iestāde:

| Nosaukums: | C.C.I.A.A. di Foggia |
| --- | --- |
| Adrese: | via Dante, 27 |
| I-71100 Foggia |

Nosaukums:

C.C.I.A.A. di Foggia

Adrese:

via Dante, 27

I-71100 Foggia

Tālr.:

0881797111

Fakss Nr.:

0881726046

e-pasts:

—

Uzraudzības iestāde ir iecelta valsts iestāde.

4.8.   Marķējums: Uz iesaiņojuma jābūt šādām norādēm:

“Arancia del Gargano” ar vienu no tirdzniecībā pieņemtajiem ekotipa apzīmējumiem — “biondo comune” vai “duretta”, logotips, pilns AĢIN nosaukums un norādes par ražotāju, iesaiņošanas centru, mazumtirgotāju un sākotnējo tīrsvaru.

Produktus, kuru sagatavošanai izmanto AĢIN “Arancia del Gargano”, arī pēc apstrādes un pārstrādes iesaiņojumā, uz kura norādīts iepriekšminētais AĢIN nosaukums, var laist tirdzniecībā bez Kopienas logotipa ar nosacījumu, ka

apstiprinātais aizsargātas ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes produkts ir vienīgā atbilstīgās produktu grupas sastāvdaļa;

aizsargātas ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes produktu zīmes lietotājiem lietošanas atļauju piešķir AĢIN reģistrācijas laikā saņemto atbilstošā intelektuālā īpašuma tiesību turētāji, kuri apvienojušies asociācijā un kuriem Lauksaimniecības un mežsaimniecības politikas ministrija ir uzticējusi uzraudzības pienākumu. Šī asociācija arī reģistrē izmantotājus īpašos reģistros un uzrauga pareizu aizsargātā vietas nosaukuma izmantošanu. Ja atzīta asociācija nepastāv, iepriekš minētos uzdevumus veic Lauksaimniecības un mežsaimniecības politikas ministrija kā valsts iestāde, kas atbildīga par Regulas (EEK) Nr. 2081/92 īstenošanu.

Logotipā ir stilizēts divu apelsīnu attēls ar lapotu zaru elipsveida kronī; kronī ietverti vārdi “Arancia del Gargano”, un zem tiem ir norāde “Indicazione Geografica Protetta” (aizsargāta ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāde).

Attēlotie apelsīni ir oranžā krāsā, uzraksts “Arancia del Gargano” ir baltā krāsā uz oranža fona, zarotne un lapas ir zaļas, norāde “Indicazione Geografica Protetta” ir stilizēta apgāztas arkas veidā ar ieēnotām burtu apmalēm.

4.9.   Valsts prasības: —

---

(1)  Eiropas Komisija, Lauksaimniecības un lauku attīstības ģenerāldirektorāts, Lauksaimniecības produktu kvalitātes politikas nodaļa, B-1049 Brisele.

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/17

---

Dalībvalstu sniegtā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2001. gada 12. janvāra Regulu (EK) Nr. 70/2001 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu, sniedzot valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem

(2006/C 258/05)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

| Atbalsta Nr. | XS 14/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Dalībvalsts | Vācijas Federatīvā Republika |
| Reģions | Saksija |
| Atbalsta programmas nosaukums | ESF mikroaizdevumi |
| Juridiskais pamats | Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Wirtschaft und Arbeit zur Förderung von Existenzgründern durch Gewährung von Mikrodarlehen (Richtlinie ESF-Mikrodarlehen) vom 14. Dezember 2005 (SächsABl Heft 52/2005 vom 29.12.2005, S. 1280);
  §§ 23, 44 der Sächsischen Haushaltsordnung;
  Operationelles Programm zur Strukturfondsförderung des Freistaates Sachsen 2000–2006;
  Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1784/1999
  Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1260/1999 |
| Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi | Atbalsta shēma | Kopējais apjoms gadā | |
| Galvotie aizdevumi | Fondam vienreiz piešķir EUR 25 miljonus |
| Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte | Saskaņā ar regulas 4. panta 2. līdz 6. punktu un 5. pantu | Jā |
| Stāšanās spēkā | 1.1.2006.... |
| Atbalsta shēmas ilgums | Mikroaizdevumus izsniedz no ESF mikroaizdevumu fonda, kas izveidots Pastāvīgās nodarbinātības komitejā. Fonds darbojas no 2005. gada 19. decembra līdz 2013. gada 31. decembrim. Tomēr aizdevumus izsniegs tikai līdz 2008. gada 31. decembrim (struktūrfondu plānošanas periods). Pēc tam ar visiem pastāvošajiem aizdevuma līgumiem rīkosies fonds |
| Atbalsta mērķis | Atbalsts MVU | Jā |
| Attiecīgās nozares | Visas nozares, kuras ir tiesīgas saņemt atbalstu MVU | Nē |
| Attiecina uz noteiktām nozarēm | Jā |
| — | Akmeņogļu ieguve |

Atbalsta Nr.

XS 14/06

Dalībvalsts

Vācijas Federatīvā Republika

Reģions

Saksija

Atbalsta programmas nosaukums

ESF mikroaizdevumi

Juridiskais pamats

Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Wirtschaft und Arbeit zur Förderung von Existenzgründern durch Gewährung von Mikrodarlehen (Richtlinie ESF-Mikrodarlehen) vom 14. Dezember 2005 (SächsABl Heft 52/2005 vom 29.12.2005, S. 1280);

§§ 23, 44 der Sächsischen Haushaltsordnung;

Operationelles Programm zur Strukturfondsförderung des Freistaates Sachsen 2000–2006;

Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1784/1999

Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1260/1999

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi

Atbalsta shēma

Kopējais apjoms gadā

Galvotie aizdevumi

Fondam vienreiz piešķir EUR 25 miljonus

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte

Saskaņā ar regulas 4. panta 2. līdz 6. punktu un 5. pantu

Jā

Stāšanās spēkā

1.1.2006....

Atbalsta shēmas ilgums

Mikroaizdevumus izsniedz no ESF mikroaizdevumu fonda, kas izveidots Pastāvīgās nodarbinātības komitejā. Fonds darbojas no 2005. gada 19. decembra līdz 2013. gada 31. decembrim. Tomēr aizdevumus izsniegs tikai līdz 2008. gada 31. decembrim (struktūrfondu plānošanas periods). Pēc tam ar visiem pastāvošajiem aizdevuma līgumiem rīkosies fonds

Atbalsta mērķis

Atbalsts MVU

Jā

Attiecīgās nozares

Visas nozares, kuras ir tiesīgas saņemt atbalstu MVU

Nē

Attiecina uz noteiktām nozarēm

Jā

—

Akmeņogļu ieguve

| — | Visa ražojošā rūpniecība |
| --- | --- |

—

Visa ražojošā rūpniecība

Nē

vai

Tērauda rūpniecība

Nē

Kuģu būve

Nē

Sintētisko šķiedru rūpniecība

Nē

Mehānisko transportlīdzekļu ražošana

Nē

Citas ražojošās rūpniecības nozares

Jā

| — | Visi pakalpojumi |
| --- | --- |

—

Visi pakalpojumi

Nē

vai

Transporta pakalpojumi

Nē

Finanšu pakalpojumi

Nē

Citi pakalpojumi

Jā

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese

Sächsische Aufbaubank — Förderbank

| Pirnaische Straße 9 |
| --- |
| D-01069 Dresden |

Pirnaische Straße 9

D-01069 Dresden

Lielas individuālā atbalsta dotācijas

Saskaņā ar regulas 6. pantu

Jā

Attiecībā uz aizdevumu piešķiršanu pēc 2006. gada 31. decembra Vācijas iestādes apliecina, ka tiks ievēroti tobrīd spēkā esošie nosacījumi, ko paredzēs regula par atbrīvojumiem MVU. Pamatnostādnes tiks pielāgotas regulai par atbrīvojumiem MVU, kura stāsies spēkā pēc 2007. gada 1. janvāra.

| Atbalsta Nr. | XS 20/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Dalībvalsts | Itālija |
| Reģions | Kampānija |
| Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmēja nosaukums | “Jaunā atbalsta shēma amatniecības uzņēmumiem: otrais paziņojums” |
| Juridiskais pamat | POR Campania 2000-2006 approvato dalla Commissione Europea con decisione C(2000) 2347 dell'8 agosto 2000 e s.m.i.
  Complemento di Programmazione, misura 4.2 b)
  Deliberazione di Giunta Regionale N. 786 del 10.4.2004. |
| Plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma | Atbalsta shēma | Kopējā summa gadā | 15 miljoni EUR |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Individuālais atbalsts | Atbalsta kopējā summa | |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte | Saskaņā ar regulas 4. panta 2.-6. punktu un 5. pantu | Jā |
| Īstenošanas datums | 30.1.2006. |
| Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums | Līdz 31.12.2006. |
| Atbalsta mērķis | Atbalsts amatniecības uzņēmumiem, kuri atbilst mikrouzņēmumu un mazo un vidējo uzņēmumu kritērijiem, kas norādīti Komisijas 2003. gada 3. maija Ieteikumā Nr. 2003/361/EK par mikrouzņēmumu un mazo un vidējo uzņēmumu definīciju | Jā |
| Attiecīgā(-s) nozare(-s) | Visas tautsaimniecības nozares, kurās MVU ir tiesīgi saņemt atbalstu | Jā |
| Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese | Regione Campania Assessorato Attività Produttive
  Area Generale di Coordinamento n. 12 «Sviluppo Attività Settore Secondario»
  Dirigente del Settore Artigianato Dr.ssa Vittoria Capriglione «Sviluppo e Promozione Attività Artigiane e della Cooperazione». |
| Centro Direzionale |
| I-Isola A6 |
| Telefono 081.7966724, 081.7966725; fax 081.7966718 |
| e-mail: v.capriglione@regione.campania.it |

Atbalsta Nr.

XS 20/06

Dalībvalsts

Itālija

Reģions

Kampānija

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmēja nosaukums

“Jaunā atbalsta shēma amatniecības uzņēmumiem: otrais paziņojums”

Juridiskais pamat

POR Campania 2000-2006 approvato dalla Commissione Europea con decisione C(2000) 2347 dell'8 agosto 2000 e s.m.i.

Complemento di Programmazione, misura 4.2 b)

Deliberazione di Giunta Regionale N. 786 del 10.4.2004.

Plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma

Atbalsta shēma

Kopējā summa gadā

15 miljoni EUR

Garantētie aizdevumi

Individuālais atbalsts

Atbalsta kopējā summa

Garantētie aizdevumi

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte

Saskaņā ar regulas 4. panta 2.-6. punktu un 5. pantu

Jā

Īstenošanas datums

30.1.2006.

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums

Līdz 31.12.2006.

Atbalsta mērķis

Atbalsts amatniecības uzņēmumiem, kuri atbilst mikrouzņēmumu un mazo un vidējo uzņēmumu kritērijiem, kas norādīti Komisijas 2003. gada 3. maija Ieteikumā Nr. 2003/361/EK par mikrouzņēmumu un mazo un vidējo uzņēmumu definīciju

Jā

Attiecīgā(-s) nozare(-s)

Visas tautsaimniecības nozares, kurās MVU ir tiesīgi saņemt atbalstu

Jā

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese

Regione Campania Assessorato Attività Produttive

Area Generale di Coordinamento n. 12 «Sviluppo Attività Settore Secondario»

Dirigente del Settore Artigianato Dr.ssa Vittoria Capriglione «Sviluppo e Promozione Attività Artigiane e della Cooperazione».

Centro Direzionale

I-Isola A6

Telefono 081.7966724, 081.7966725; fax 081.7966718

e-mail: v.capriglione@regione.campania.it

Lielas individuālā atbalsta dotācijas

Saskaņā ar regulas 6. pantu

Jā

| Atbalsta numurs: | XS 24/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Dalībvalsts | Apvienotā Karaliste |
| Reģions | West Wales & The Valleys 1. mērķa reģions |
| Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums | Energy Tech Ltd |
| Juridiskais pamats | Padomes Regula (EK) 1260/99 |
| The Structural Funds (National Assembly for Wales) Regulations 2000 (No/906/2000)
  The Structural Funds (National Assembly for Wales) Designation2000 |
| Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopējais apjoms | Atbalsta shēma | Kopējais apjoms gadā | |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Individuālais atbalsts | Kopējais atbalsta apjoms | 300 300 GBP |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte | Atbilstīgi regulas 4. panta 2.-6. punktam un 5. pantam | Jā |
| Īstenošanas datums | Sākot no 17.1.2006. |
| Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta darbības termiņš | Līdz 31.12.2006.
  NB! Kā tas norādīts iepriekš, subsīdija tika uzsākta pirms 2006. gada 31. decembra. Maksājumus šo saistību ietvaros var turpināt (atbilstīgi N+2 noteikumam) līdz 2008. gada 30. aprīlim. |
| Atbalsta mērķis | Atbalsts MVU | Jā |
| Attiecīgās tautsaimniecības nozares | Tikai noteiktas nozares | Jā |
| Citi pakalpojumi (atjaunojamā enerģija) | Jā |
| Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese | National Assembly for Wales |
| C/o Welsh European Funding Office |
| Cwm Cynon Business Park |
| Mountain Ash CF45 4ER |
| United Kingdom |

Atbalsta numurs:

XS 24/06

Dalībvalsts

Apvienotā Karaliste

Reģions

West Wales & The Valleys 1. mērķa reģions

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums

Energy Tech Ltd

Juridiskais pamats

Padomes Regula (EK) 1260/99

The Structural Funds (National Assembly for Wales) Regulations 2000 (No/906/2000)

The Structural Funds (National Assembly for Wales) Designation2000

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopējais apjoms

Atbalsta shēma

Kopējais apjoms gadā

Garantētie aizdevumi

Individuālais atbalsts

Kopējais atbalsta apjoms

300 300 GBP

Garantētie aizdevumi

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte

Atbilstīgi regulas 4. panta 2.-6. punktam un 5. pantam

Jā

Īstenošanas datums

Sākot no 17.1.2006.

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta darbības termiņš

Līdz 31.12.2006.

NB! Kā tas norādīts iepriekš, subsīdija tika uzsākta pirms 2006. gada 31. decembra. Maksājumus šo saistību ietvaros var turpināt (atbilstīgi N+2 noteikumam) līdz 2008. gada 30. aprīlim.

Atbalsta mērķis

Atbalsts MVU

Jā

Attiecīgās tautsaimniecības nozares

Tikai noteiktas nozares

Jā

Citi pakalpojumi (atjaunojamā enerģija)

Jā

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese

National Assembly for Wales

C/o Welsh European Funding Office

Cwm Cynon Business Park

Mountain Ash CF45 4ER

United Kingdom

Liela apjoma individuālais atbalsts

Atbilstīgi regulas 6. pantam

Jā

| Atbalsta numurs | XS 48/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Dalībvalsts | Apvienotā Karaliste |
| Reģions | Rietumu Velsa un ielejas. 1. mērķa reģions |
| Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums | Trac Môn Ltd |
| Juridiskais pamats | Padomes Regula (EK) 1260/99 |
| The Structural Funds (National Assembly for Wales) Regulations 2000 (No 906/2000)
  Local Government Act 2000 |
| Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma | Atbalsta shēma | Kopsumma gadā | |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Individuālais atbalsts | Atbalsta kopsumma | GBP 1 369 647 |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte | Saskaņā ar regulas 4. panta 2. līdz 6. punktu un 5. pantu | Jā |
| Īstenošanas datums | No 2006. gada 16. marta |
| Shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums | Līdz 2006. gada 31. decembrim
  NB! Kā minēts iepriekš, pabalstu piešķīra pirms 2006. gada 31. decembra Maksājumu veikšana saskaņā ar šīm saistībām turpinās, iespējams (atbilstoši N+2), līdz 2007. gada 31. decembrim |
| Atbalsta mērķis | Atbalsts MVU | Jā |
| Attiecīgās tautsaimniecības nozares | Attiecina uz noteiktām nozarēm | Jā |
| Citi pakalpojumi (motosports) | Jā |
| Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese | National Assembly for Wales |
| C/o Welsh European Funding Office |
| Cwm Cynon Business Park |
| Mountain Ash CF45 4ER |
| United Kingdom |

Atbalsta numurs

XS 48/06

Dalībvalsts

Apvienotā Karaliste

Reģions

Rietumu Velsa un ielejas. 1. mērķa reģions

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums

Trac Môn Ltd

Juridiskais pamats

Padomes Regula (EK) 1260/99

The Structural Funds (National Assembly for Wales) Regulations 2000 (No 906/2000)

Local Government Act 2000

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma

Atbalsta shēma

Kopsumma gadā

Garantētie aizdevumi

Individuālais atbalsts

Atbalsta kopsumma

GBP 1 369 647

Garantētie aizdevumi

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte

Saskaņā ar regulas 4. panta 2. līdz 6. punktu un 5. pantu

Jā

Īstenošanas datums

No 2006. gada 16. marta

Shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums

Līdz 2006. gada 31. decembrim

NB! Kā minēts iepriekš, pabalstu piešķīra pirms 2006. gada 31. decembra Maksājumu veikšana saskaņā ar šīm saistībām turpinās, iespējams (atbilstoši N+2), līdz 2007. gada 31. decembrim

Atbalsta mērķis

Atbalsts MVU

Jā

Attiecīgās tautsaimniecības nozares

Attiecina uz noteiktām nozarēm

Jā

Citi pakalpojumi (motosports)

Jā

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese

National Assembly for Wales

C/o Welsh European Funding Office

Cwm Cynon Business Park

Mountain Ash CF45 4ER

United Kingdom

Lielas individuālā atbalsta dotācijas

Saskaņā ar regulas 6. pantu

Jā

| Atbalsta numurs: | XS 85/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Dalībvalsts | Malta |
| Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums | Eureka Programme Scheme |
| Juridiskais pamats | Malta Enterprise Corporation Act (CAP 463) |
| Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopējais apjoms | Atbalsta shēma | Kopējais apjoms gadā | 0,2 miljoni EUR |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Individuālais atbalsts | Kopējais atbalsta apjoms | |
| Garantētie aizdevumi | |
| Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte | Atbilstīgi regulas 4. panta 2.-6. punktam un 5. pantam | Jā |
| Īstenošanas datums | 8.6.2006. |
| Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta darbības termiņš | Līdz 30.6.2007. |
| Atbalsta mērķis | Atbalsts MVU | Jā |
| Attiecīgās tautsaimniecības nozares | Visas nozares, kuras var saņemt atbalstu MVU | Jā |
| Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese | Malta Enterprise Corporation |
| Malta Enterprise |
| Enterprise Centre, Industrial Estate, |
| MT-San Gwann SGN 09 |

Atbalsta numurs:

XS 85/06

Dalībvalsts

Malta

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums

Eureka Programme Scheme

Juridiskais pamats

Malta Enterprise Corporation Act (CAP 463)

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopējais apjoms

Atbalsta shēma

Kopējais apjoms gadā

0,2 miljoni EUR

Garantētie aizdevumi

Individuālais atbalsts

Kopējais atbalsta apjoms

Garantētie aizdevumi

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte

Atbilstīgi regulas 4. panta 2.-6. punktam un 5. pantam

Jā

Īstenošanas datums

8.6.2006.

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta darbības termiņš

Līdz 30.6.2007.

Atbalsta mērķis

Atbalsts MVU

Jā

Attiecīgās tautsaimniecības nozares

Visas nozares, kuras var saņemt atbalstu MVU

Jā

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese

Malta Enterprise Corporation

Malta Enterprise

Enterprise Centre, Industrial Estate,

MT-San Gwann SGN 09

Liela apjoma individuālais atbalsts

Atbilstīgi regulas 6. pantam

-

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/21

---

Dalībvalstu sniegtā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar Komisijas 2002. gada 12. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 2204/2002 par Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu nodarbinātībai

(2006/C 258/06)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

| Atbalsta numurs | XE 12/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Dalībvalsts | Francija |
| Reģions | Limuzēna |
| Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums | Atbalsts darbības pārrauga pieņemšanai darbā |
| Juridiskais pamats | — | Komisijas 2002. gada 5. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 2204/2002 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu nodarbinātībai |

Atbalsta numurs

XE 12/06

Dalībvalsts

Francija

Reģions

Limuzēna

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums

Atbalsts darbības pārrauga pieņemšanai darbā

Juridiskais pamats

—

Komisijas 2002. gada 5. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 2204/2002 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu nodarbinātībai

| — | Padomes 1999. gada 17. maija Regula (EK) Nr. 1257/1999 par Eiropas Lauksaimniecības virzības un garantiju fonda (ELVGF) atbalstu lauku attīstībai |
| --- | --- |

—

Padomes 1999. gada 17. maija Regula (EK) Nr. 1257/1999 par Eiropas Lauksaimniecības virzības un garantiju fonda (ELVGF) atbalstu lauku attīstībai

| — | Code rural — Art. R.113-13 à R. 113-17 relatifs à la délimitation des zones agricoles défavorisées [l'ensemble du territoire Limousin est en zone défavorisée, à l'exception de la commune de Limoges] |
| --- | --- |

—

Code rural — Art. R.113-13 à R. 113-17 relatifs à la délimitation des zones agricoles défavorisées [l'ensemble du territoire Limousin est en zone défavorisée, à l'exception de la commune de Limoges]

Saskaņā ar shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi

Kopsumma gadā

0,5 miljoni EUR

Garantētie aizdevumi

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte

Saskaņā ar regulas 4. panta 2. līdz 5. punktu, 5. un 6. pantu

| — | 50 % no bruto algām un darba devēju veiktajām sociālās nodrošināšanas iemaksām, izņemot Limožas pašvaldību, kur maksimālā likme ir samazināta līdz 15 % |
| --- | --- |

—

50 % no bruto algām un darba devēju veiktajām sociālās nodrošināšanas iemaksām, izņemot Limožas pašvaldību, kur maksimālā likme ir samazināta līdz 15 %

Jā

Īstenošanas datums

2004. gada 24. septembris

Shēmas ilgums

Līdz 2010. gada 31. decembrim

Atbalsta mērķis

4. pants. Darba vietu radīšana

Jā

5. pants. Neizdevīgu darba ņēmēju vai strādājošo invalīdu pieņemšana darbā

Nē

6. pants. Strādājošo invalīdu nodarbināšana

Nē

Attiecīgās tautsaimniecības nozares

| — | Visas Kopienas nozares (1), kurās drīkst piešķirt atbalstu nodarbinātībai |
| --- | --- |

—

Visas Kopienas nozares (1), kurās drīkst piešķirt atbalstu nodarbinātībai

Nē

| — | Visi ražošanas veidi (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Visi ražošanas veidi (1)

Nē

| — | Visi pakalpojumi (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Visi pakalpojumi (1)

Nē

| — | Cits: visa lauksaimniecības nozare (darbības, kas saistītas ar I pielikumā minēto produktu ražošanu, apstrādi un tirdzniecību); līdzīgs atbalsts jau piešķirts saskaņā ar valsts un reģiona 4. plānošanas līgumu 2000. līdz 2006. gadam pārējām darbības jomām atbilstoši FRAC shēmai Nr. 2/99 |
| --- | --- |

—

Cits: visa lauksaimniecības nozare (darbības, kas saistītas ar I pielikumā minēto produktu ražošanu, apstrādi un tirdzniecību); līdzīgs atbalsts jau piešķirts saskaņā ar valsts un reģiona 4. plānošanas līgumu 2000. līdz 2006. gadam pārējām darbības jomām atbilstoši FRAC shēmai Nr. 2/99

Jā

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese

Conseil Régional du Limousin

| 27, Boulevard de la Corderie |
| --- |
| F-87031 Limoges Cedex |

27, Boulevard de la Corderie

F-87031 Limoges Cedex

Papildinformācija

Ja shēmu līdzfinansē no Kopienas fondu līdzekļiem, lūdzu, iekļaut šādu teikumu:

Atbalsta shēmu līdzfinansē no Kopienas fondiem, izmantojot Eiropas Sociālo fondu saskaņā ar VPD Limuzēnas reģionam — 2.3.3. apakšpasākums. “Atbalsts darbības uzsākšanai un prasmju apgūšanai lauksaimniecības un mežsaimniecības nozarē”

Atbalsts, par kuru iepriekš jāinformē Komisija

Saskaņā ar regulas 9. pantu

Jā

---

(1)  Izņemot kuģu būvi un citas nozares, uz kurām attiecas īpaši noteikumi regulās un direktīvās, kas regulē valsts atbalstu konkrētā nozarē.

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/23

---

Komisijas paziņojums par to, kā īsteno Padomes 1988. gada 3. maija Direktīva 88/378/EEK par dalībvalstu tiesību aktu tuvināšanu attiecībā uz rotaļlietu drošību

(2006/C 258/07)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

(Saskaņoto standartu nosaukumu un atsauču numuru publicēšana saskaņā ar direktīvu)

| ESO

   (1) | Saskaņotā standarta nosaukums un atsauces numurs
  (un atsauces dokuments) | Norāde uz aizstāto standartu | Aizstātā standarta atbilstības prezumpcijas beigu datums
  1. piezīme |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CEN | EN 7 1–1:1998 (2)
   (3)

  Rotaļlietu drošums — 1. daļa: Mehāniskās un fizikālās īpašības | EN 71-1:1998 | Spēkā līdz
  (31.1.2001.) |
| EN 71-1:1998/A5:2000 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (31.5.2001.) |
| EN 71-1:1998/A1:2001 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (31.7.2001.) |
| EN 71-1:1998/A2:2002 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (31.8.2002.) |
| EN 71-1:1998/A6:2002 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (30.9.2002.) |
| EN 71-1:1998/A7:2002 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (30.11.2002.) |
| EN 71-1:1998/A8:2003 (4) | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (31.3.2004.) |
| EN 71-1:1998/A4:2004 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  31.12.2005. |
| EN 71-1:1998/A10:2004 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  31.12.2005. |
| EN 71-1:1998/A9:2004 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  31.12.2005. |
| CEN | EN 71-2:2006
  Rotaļlietu drošums — Uzliesmojamība | EN 71-2:2003 | Spēkā līdz
  31.7.2006. |
| EN 71-2:2006/AC:2006 | | |
| CEN | EN 71-3:1994
  Rotaļlietu drošums — 3. daļa: Noteiktu elementu migrācija | EN 71-3:1988 | Spēkā līdz
  (30.6.1995.) |
| EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (31.10.2000.) |
| EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000/AC:2000 | | |
| EN 71-3:1994/AC:2002 | | |
| CEN | EN 71-4:1990
  Rotaļlietu drošums — 4. daļa: Ķīmijas un radniecīgu darbību eksperimentālie komplekti | — | |
| EN 71-4:1998/A1:1998 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (31.10.1998.) |
| EN 71-4:1990/A2:2003 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  (31.1.2004.) |
| CEN | EN 71-5:1993
  Rotaļlietu drošums — 5. daļa: Ķīmiskās rotaļlietas (komplekti), izņemot eksperimentālos komplektus | — | |
| EN 71-5:1993/A1:2006 | 3. piezīme | Spēkā līdz
  31.7.2006. |
| CEN | EN 71-6:1994
  Rotaļlietu drošums — 6. daļa: Grafiskais simbols vecuma brīdinājuma marķējumam | — | |
| CEN | EN 71-7:2002
  Rotaļlietu drošums — 7. daļa: Pirkstzīmēšanas krāsas — Prasības un pārbaudes metodes | — | |
| CEN | EN 71-8:2003
  Rotaļlietu drošums — 8. daļa: Ģimenes šūpoles, slīdkalniņi un tamlīdzīgas telpu un āra atrakcijas | — | |
| EN 71-8:2003/A1:2006 | 3. piezīme | 30.11.2006. |

ESO

(1)

Saskaņotā standarta nosaukums un atsauces numurs

(un atsauces dokuments)

Norāde uz aizstāto standartu

Aizstātā standarta atbilstības prezumpcijas beigu datums

1. piezīme

CEN

EN 7 1–1:1998 (2)
   (3)

Rotaļlietu drošums — 1. daļa: Mehāniskās un fizikālās īpašības

EN 71-1:1998

Spēkā līdz

(31.1.2001.)

EN 71-1:1998/A5:2000

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(31.5.2001.)

EN 71-1:1998/A1:2001

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(31.7.2001.)

EN 71-1:1998/A2:2002

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(31.8.2002.)

EN 71-1:1998/A6:2002

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(30.9.2002.)

EN 71-1:1998/A7:2002

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(30.11.2002.)

EN 71-1:1998/A8:2003 (4)

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(31.3.2004.)

EN 71-1:1998/A4:2004

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

31.12.2005.

EN 71-1:1998/A10:2004

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

31.12.2005.

EN 71-1:1998/A9:2004

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

31.12.2005.

CEN

EN 71-2:2006

Rotaļlietu drošums — Uzliesmojamība

EN 71-2:2003

Spēkā līdz

31.7.2006.

EN 71-2:2006/AC:2006

CEN

EN 71-3:1994

Rotaļlietu drošums — 3. daļa: Noteiktu elementu migrācija

EN 71-3:1988

Spēkā līdz

(30.6.1995.)

EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(31.10.2000.)

EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000/AC:2000

EN 71-3:1994/AC:2002

CEN

EN 71-4:1990

Rotaļlietu drošums — 4. daļa: Ķīmijas un radniecīgu darbību eksperimentālie komplekti

—

EN 71-4:1998/A1:1998

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(31.10.1998.)

EN 71-4:1990/A2:2003

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

(31.1.2004.)

CEN

EN 71-5:1993

Rotaļlietu drošums — 5. daļa: Ķīmiskās rotaļlietas (komplekti), izņemot eksperimentālos komplektus

—

EN 71-5:1993/A1:2006

3. piezīme

Spēkā līdz

31.7.2006.

CEN

EN 71-6:1994

Rotaļlietu drošums — 6. daļa: Grafiskais simbols vecuma brīdinājuma marķējumam

—

CEN

EN 71-7:2002

Rotaļlietu drošums — 7. daļa: Pirkstzīmēšanas krāsas — Prasības un pārbaudes metodes

—

CEN

EN 71-8:2003

Rotaļlietu drošums — 8. daļa: Ģimenes šūpoles, slīdkalniņi un tamlīdzīgas telpu un āra atrakcijas

—

EN 71-8:2003/A1:2006

3. piezīme

30.11.2006.

| 1. piezīme | Parasti atbilstības prezumpcijas beigu datums būs diena, ko nosaka Eiropas Standartizācijas organizācija, taču šo standartu lietotājiem jāatceras, ka izņēmuma gadījumos tas var būt cits datums. |
| --- | --- |

1. piezīme

Parasti atbilstības prezumpcijas beigu datums būs diena, ko nosaka Eiropas Standartizācijas organizācija, taču šo standartu lietotājiem jāatceras, ka izņēmuma gadījumos tas var būt cits datums.

| 3. piezīme | Grozījumu gadījumā atsauces standarta numurs ir EN CCCCC:YYYY, iepriekšējie grozījumi, ja tādi bijuši, un attiecīgie jaunie grozījumi. Aizstātais standarts (3. aile) ir attiecīgi EN CCCCC:YYYY un tā iepriekšējie grozījumi, ja tādi bijuši, bet bez jaunā grozījuma. Norādītajā datumā aizstātais standarts zaudē atbilstības prezumpciju attiecībā uz direktīvas pamatprasībām. |
| --- | --- |

3. piezīme

Grozījumu gadījumā atsauces standarta numurs ir EN CCCCC:YYYY, iepriekšējie grozījumi, ja tādi bijuši, un attiecīgie jaunie grozījumi. Aizstātais standarts (3. aile) ir attiecīgi EN CCCCC:YYYY un tā iepriekšējie grozījumi, ja tādi bijuši, bet bez jaunā grozījuma. Norādītajā datumā aizstātais standarts zaudē atbilstības prezumpciju attiecībā uz direktīvas pamatprasībām.

Piezīme:

| — | Informāciju, kas attiecas uz standartu pieejamību, var iegūt no Eiropas standartizācijas organizācijām vai no valstu standartizācijas organizācijām, kuru saraksts ir pievienots pielikumā Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvai 98/34/EK (5), kurā grozījumi izdarīti ar Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvu 98/48/EK (6). |
| --- | --- |

—

Informāciju, kas attiecas uz standartu pieejamību, var iegūt no Eiropas standartizācijas organizācijām vai no valstu standartizācijas organizācijām, kuru saraksts ir pievienots pielikumā Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvai 98/34/EK (5), kurā grozījumi izdarīti ar Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvu 98/48/EK (6).

| — | Atsauču publikācija Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī nenozīmē, ka standarti ir pieejami visās Kopienas valodās. |
| --- | --- |

—

Atsauču publikācija Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī nenozīmē, ka standarti ir pieejami visās Kopienas valodās.

Sīkāka informācija par saskaņotajiem standartiem ir pieejama internetā šādā tīmekļa vietnē:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/

---

(1)  ESO: Eiropas Standartizācijas organizācija:

| — | CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, tālr. (32-2) 550 08 11; fakss (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be) |
| --- | --- |

—

CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, tālr. (32-2) 550 08 11; fakss (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be)

| — | CENELEC: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, tālr. (32-2) 519 68 71; fakss (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org) |
| --- | --- |

—

CENELEC: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, tālr. (32-2) 519 68 71; fakss (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org)

| — | ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, tālr. (33) 492 94 42 00; fakss (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org) |
| --- | --- |

—

ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, tālr. (33) 492 94 42 00; fakss (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org)

(2)

Norāde: saskaņā ar Komisijas 2001. gada 30. jūlija lēmumu (OV L 205, 31.7.2001., 39. lpp.) tikai no 2001. gada 1. augusta prezumpcijas atbilstību attiecina uz standarta EN 71–1:1998 4.20. punkta d) apakšpunktu par skaņas emisijas spiediena C līdzsvaroto līmeni, kuru rada rotaļlieta ar triecienkapselēm.

(3)

Norāde: saskaņā ar Komisijas 2005. gada 9. marta lēmumu (OV L 63, 10.3.2005., 27. lpp.) standarta EN 71–1:1998 4.6. punktu un tā 8.14. punktu, ciktāl tas attiecas uz 24 stundu laika posmu, kura laikā rotaļlieta ir jāiegremdē konteinerā, neaptver visu veidu risku, ko rada rotaļlietas un rotaļlietu sastāvdaļas, kas izgatavotas no elastīgiem materiāliem. Standarts neļauj izdarīt pieņēmumu par atbilstību šajā sakarībā.

(4)

Norāde: standarts EN 71-1:1998/A8:2003 attiecas tikai uz riskiem, ko rada “mazas bumbiņas” (kas standartā definētas kā sfērisks, olveida vai elipsoidāls objekts), kas ir konstruētas vai paredzētas sviešanai, sišanai, speršanai, ripināšanai, nomešanai vai atlekšanai. Par rotaļlietām ar mazām bumbiņām, uz kurām neattiecas minētais standarts, pirms laišanas tirgū jāsaņem ES tipa pārbaudes apliecība.

(5)  OV L 204, 21.7.1998., 37. lpp.

(6)  OV L 217, 5.8.1998., 18. lpp.

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/25

---

Iepriekšējs paziņojums par koncentrāciju

(Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4314 — Johnson & Johnson/Pfizer Consumer Healthcare)

(2006/C 258/08)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

| 1. | Komisija 2006. gada 19. oktobrī saņēma paziņojumu par ierosinātu koncentrāciju saskaņā ar Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 (1) 4. pantu, ar kuru uzņēmums Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”, ASV) Padomes regulas 3. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkta nozīmē iegūst kontroli pār uzņēmuma Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”, ASV) daļu, proti, visu Pfizer patērētāju veselības aprūpes sadaļu Pfizer Consumer Health Care (“PCH”, ASV), iegādājoties tā akcijas un aktīvus. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Komisija 2006. gada 19. oktobrī saņēma paziņojumu par ierosinātu koncentrāciju saskaņā ar Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 (1) 4. pantu, ar kuru uzņēmums Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”, ASV) Padomes regulas 3. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkta nozīmē iegūst kontroli pār uzņēmuma Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”, ASV) daļu, proti, visu Pfizer patērētāju veselības aprūpes sadaļu Pfizer Consumer Health Care (“PCH”, ASV), iegādājoties tā akcijas un aktīvus.

| 2. | Attiecīgie uzņēmumi veic šādu uzņēmējdarbību:






  — | Johnson & Johnson: patēriņa preces, farmaceitiski produkti, medicīnas ierīces un diagnostika, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Attiecīgie uzņēmumi veic šādu uzņēmējdarbību:

—

Johnson & Johnson: patēriņa preces, farmaceitiski produkti, medicīnas ierīces un diagnostika,

| — | Pfizer Consumer Healthcare: personīgās higiēnas preces un bezrecepšu farmaceitiski produkti. |
| --- | --- |

—

Pfizer Consumer Healthcare: personīgās higiēnas preces un bezrecepšu farmaceitiski produkti.

| 3. | Iepriekšējā pārbaudē Komisija konstatē, ka uz paziņoto darījumu, iespējams, attiecas Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 darbības joma. Tomēr galīgais lēmums šajā jautājumā vēl nav pieņemts. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Iepriekšējā pārbaudē Komisija konstatē, ka uz paziņoto darījumu, iespējams, attiecas Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 darbības joma. Tomēr galīgais lēmums šajā jautājumā vēl nav pieņemts.

| 4. | Komisija aicina ieinteresētās trešās personas iesniegt tai savus iespējamos apsvērumus par ierosināto darbību.
  Apsvērumiem jānonāk Komisijā ne vēlāk kā 10 dienās pēc šīs publikācijas datuma. Apsvērumus Komisijai var nosūtīt pa faksu (faksa numurs (32-2) 296 43 01 vai 296 72 44) vai pa pastu ar atsauces numuru COMP/M.4314 — Johnson & Johnson/Pfizer Consumer Healthcare uz šādu adresi:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

Komisija aicina ieinteresētās trešās personas iesniegt tai savus iespējamos apsvērumus par ierosināto darbību.

Apsvērumiem jānonāk Komisijā ne vēlāk kā 10 dienās pēc šīs publikācijas datuma. Apsvērumus Komisijai var nosūtīt pa faksu (faksa numurs (32-2) 296 43 01 vai 296 72 44) vai pa pastu ar atsauces numuru COMP/M.4314 — Johnson & Johnson/Pfizer Consumer Healthcare uz šādu adresi:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OV L 24, 29.1.2004., 1. lpp.

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/26

---

Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju

(Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4405 — Walter Frey Holding/Mitsubishi Motors Europe)

(2006/C 258/09)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2006. gada 17. oktobrī Komisija nolēma necelt iebildumus pret augstāk paziņoto koncentrāciju un paziņo, ka tā ir saderīga ar kopējo tirgu. Šis lēmums ir balstīts uz Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 6. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunktu. Lēmuma pilns teksts ir pieejams vienīgi vācu un tiks publicēts pēc tam, kad tiks noskaidrots, vai tas ietver jelkādus komercnoslēpumus. Tas būs pieejams:

| — | Eiropas konkurences tīmekļa vietnē (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Šī tīmekļa vietne nodrošina dažādas iespējas, lai palīdzētu ievietot individuālos apvienošanās lēmumus, norādot arī uzņēmuma nosaukumu, lietas numuru, datumu un sektorālo indeksu. |
| --- | --- |

—

Eiropas konkurences tīmekļa vietnē (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Šī tīmekļa vietne nodrošina dažādas iespējas, lai palīdzētu ievietot individuālos apvienošanās lēmumus, norādot arī uzņēmuma nosaukumu, lietas numuru, datumu un sektorālo indeksu.

| — | elektroniskā veidā EUR-Lex tīmekļa vietnē ar dokumenta numuru 32006M4405. EUR-Lex ir tiešsaite piekļūšanai Eiropas Kopienas likumdošanas datorizētai dokumentācijas sistēmai. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

elektroniskā veidā EUR-Lex tīmekļa vietnē ar dokumenta numuru 32006M4405. EUR-Lex ir tiešsaite piekļūšanai Eiropas Kopienas likumdošanas datorizētai dokumentācijas sistēmai. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/26

---

Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju

(Lieta Nr. COMP/M.4294 — Arcelor/SNCFL/CFL Cargo)

(2006/C 258/10)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2006. gada 9. oktobrī Komisija nolēma necelt iebildumus pret augstāk paziņoto koncentrāciju un paziņo, ka tā ir saderīga ar kopējo tirgu. Šis lēmums ir balstīts uz Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 6. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunktu. Lēmuma pilns teksts ir pieejams vienīgi franču un tiks publicēts pēc tam, kad tiks noskaidrots, vai tas ietver jelkādus komercnoslēpumus. Tas būs pieejams:

| — | Eiropas konkurences tīmekļa vietnē (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Šī tīmekļa vietne nodrošina dažādas iespējas, lai palīdzētu ievietot individuālos apvienošanās lēmumus, norādot arī uzņēmuma nosaukumu, lietas numuru, datumu un sektorālo indeksu. |
| --- | --- |

—

Eiropas konkurences tīmekļa vietnē (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Šī tīmekļa vietne nodrošina dažādas iespējas, lai palīdzētu ievietot individuālos apvienošanās lēmumus, norādot arī uzņēmuma nosaukumu, lietas numuru, datumu un sektorālo indeksu.

| — | elektroniskā veidā EUR-Lex tīmekļa vietnē ar dokumenta numuru 32006M4294. EUR-Lex ir tiešsaite piekļūšanai Eiropas Kopienas likumdošanas datorizētai dokumentācijas sistēmai. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

elektroniskā veidā EUR-Lex tīmekļa vietnē ar dokumenta numuru 32006M4294. EUR-Lex ir tiešsaite piekļūšanai Eiropas Kopienas likumdošanas datorizētai dokumentācijas sistēmai. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---

EIROPAS EKONOMISKĀ ZONA

EBTA Tiesa

| 26.10.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/27

---

EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes 2006. gada 31. jūlija prasība pret Norvēģijas Karalisti

(Lieta E-2/06)

(2006/C 258/11)

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde, ko pārstāvēja Niels Fenger, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels, 2006. gada 31 jūlijā iesniedza EBTA Tiesai prasību pret Norvēģijas Karalisti.

Iesniedzējs prasa, lai Tiesa:

| 1. | paziņotu, ka Norvēģijas Karaliste, paturot spēkā pasākumus, kā paredzēts 1917. gada 14. decembra Likumā Nr. 16, ar kuriem tiek piešķirta koncesija uz noteiktu laiku attiecībā uz ūdenskritumu iegādi enerģijas ražošanai privātiem un visiem uzņēmumiem no citām EEZ līguma līgumslēdzējām pusēm un noteikts tām par pienākumu bez atlīdzības nodot Norvēģijas valstij visas iekārtas koncesijas termiņa beigās, paredzot izņēmumu attiecībā uz Norvēģijas valsts uzņēmumiem, kas piemēro koncesijas neierobežotu laikposmu, ir pārkāpusi EEZ Līguma 31. un 40. pantu,
  un |
| --- | --- |

1.

paziņotu, ka Norvēģijas Karaliste, paturot spēkā pasākumus, kā paredzēts 1917. gada 14. decembra Likumā Nr. 16, ar kuriem tiek piešķirta koncesija uz noteiktu laiku attiecībā uz ūdenskritumu iegādi enerģijas ražošanai privātiem un visiem uzņēmumiem no citām EEZ līguma līgumslēdzējām pusēm un noteikts tām par pienākumu bez atlīdzības nodot Norvēģijas valstij visas iekārtas koncesijas termiņa beigās, paredzot izņēmumu attiecībā uz Norvēģijas valsts uzņēmumiem, kas piemēro koncesijas neierobežotu laikposmu, ir pārkāpusi EEZ Līguma 31. un 40. pantu,

un

| 2. | piespriestu Norvēģijas Karalistei segt tiesāšanās izdevumus. |
| --- | --- |

2.

piespriestu Norvēģijas Karalistei segt tiesāšanās izdevumus.

Juridiskā un faktiskā pamatinformācija un prasības juridiskais pamats

| — | Lieta attiecas uz hidroelektrostaciju īpašuma tiesību pāreju Norvēģijas valstij bez kompensācijas izmaksas koncesijas perioda beigās. Šāda pāreja Norvēģijas likumā ir paredzēta kā “reversija” (norvēģiski — “hjemfall”) arī gadījumos, kad valstij nekad agrāk nav bijušas īpašuma tiesības uz attiecīgo ūdenskritumu vai hidroelektroiekārtu. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lieta attiecas uz hidroelektrostaciju īpašuma tiesību pāreju Norvēģijas valstij bez kompensācijas izmaksas koncesijas perioda beigās. Šāda pāreja Norvēģijas likumā ir paredzēta kā “reversija” (norvēģiski — “hjemfall”) arī gadījumos, kad valstij nekad agrāk nav bijušas īpašuma tiesības uz attiecīgo ūdenskritumu vai hidroelektroiekārtu.

| — | Saskaņā ar 1917. gada 14. decembra Likumu Nr. 16 (“Rūpniecisko iekārtu licencēšanas likums”) koncesijas ilgums ūdenskritumu un hidroelektroiekārtu izmantošanai ir neierobežots tiem uzņēmumiem, kuru pamatkapitāls vismaz 2/3 apmērā pieder Norvēģijas valstij, apgabalu pašvaldībām vai pašvaldībām, bet ierobežots visiem pārējiem, tostarp visiem uzņēmumiem, kuru pamatkapitāls vairāk nekā 1/3 apmērā pieder citiem īpašniekiem no EEZ valstīm — atsevišķi vai kopīgi ar Norvēģijas privātajiem īpašniekiem. |
| --- | --- |

—

Saskaņā ar 1917. gada 14. decembra Likumu Nr. 16 (“Rūpniecisko iekārtu licencēšanas likums”) koncesijas ilgums ūdenskritumu un hidroelektroiekārtu izmantošanai ir neierobežots tiem uzņēmumiem, kuru pamatkapitāls vismaz 2/3 apmērā pieder Norvēģijas valstij, apgabalu pašvaldībām vai pašvaldībām, bet ierobežots visiem pārējiem, tostarp visiem uzņēmumiem, kuru pamatkapitāls vairāk nekā 1/3 apmērā pieder citiem īpašniekiem no EEZ valstīm — atsevišķi vai kopīgi ar Norvēģijas privātajiem īpašniekiem.

| — | Tādējādi reversija attiecas tikai uz pēdējo minēto kategoriju. |
| --- | --- |

—

Tādējādi reversija attiecas tikai uz pēdējo minēto kategoriju.

| — | Saskaņā ar EBTA Uzraudzības iestādi tas nozīmē, ka reversija veidā, kādā tā tiek īstenota pašlaik, diskriminē īpašniekus no citām EEZ valstīm, kas tādējādi ir EEZ Līguma 31. un 40. panta pārkāpums. |
| --- | --- |

—

Saskaņā ar EBTA Uzraudzības iestādi tas nozīmē, ka reversija veidā, kādā tā tiek īstenota pašlaik, diskriminē īpašniekus no citām EEZ valstīm, kas tādējādi ir EEZ Līguma 31. un 40. panta pārkāpums.

| — | EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzskata, ka šāda dažāda attieksme nav objektīvi pamatota, turklāt neietilpst EEZ līguma 125. pantā. |
| --- | --- |

—

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzskata, ka šāda dažāda attieksme nav objektīvi pamatota, turklāt neietilpst EEZ līguma 125. pantā.

---

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde

| 26.10.2006 | LV EN | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV EN

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/28

---

Uzaicinājums saskaņā ar Nolīguma par Uzraudzību un Tiesu 3. protokola I. daļas 1. panta 2. punktu iesniegt piezīmes par Norvēģijā ierosināto jauno shēmu finanšu atbalsta piešķiršanai nesamaksātam darbam pētniecības un attīstības pasākumos (Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme)

(2006/C 258/12)

Ar 2006. gada 8. marta Lēmumu Nr. 59/06/COL, kas autentiskā valodā sniegts šim kopsavilkumam pievienotajās lappusēs, EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde ierosināja procesu saskaņā ar EBTA valstu Nolīguma par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi (Nolīgums par Uzraudzību un Tiesu) 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu. Norvēģijas iestādes tika informētas, nosūtot tām lēmuma kopiju.

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde ar šo aicina EBTA valstis, ES dalībvalstis un ieinteresētās personas viena mēneša laikā pēc šā paziņojuma publicēšanas dienas iesniegt savas piezīmes par minēto jautājumu, tās adresējot:

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| 35, Rue Belliard |
| B-1040 Brussels |
| Reģistrācijas fakss: (32-2) 286 18 00 |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

35, Rue Belliard

B-1040 Brussels

Reģistrācijas fakss: (32-2) 286 18 00

Piezīmes tiks nosūtītas Norvēģijas iestādēm. Ieinteresētā persona, kas iesniedz piezīmes, var rakstveidā lūgt neizpaust tās identitāti, norādot šāda lūguma iemeslus.

KOPSAVILKUMS

Uzraudzības iestāde ir nolēmusi sākt formālu izmeklēšanas procedūru attiecībā uz Norvēģijas iestāžu ierosināto jauno shēmu, lai sniegtu finanšu piešķīrumu nesamaksātā darba atbalstam pētniecības un attīstības pasākumos (Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme), ar mērķi rosināt mazo uzņēmumu, kā arī uzņēmēju un vienpersonas uzņēmumu lielāku ieguldījumu pētniecības un attīstības pasākumos.

Nesamaksātā pētniecības un attīstības darba shēma tika ierosināta tādēļ, ka Norvēģijas iestādes atzina, ka nesamaksāto darbu pētniecības un attīstības pasākumos nevar atbalstīt saskaņā ar esošo Skattefunn shēmu (kura apstiprināta ar Uzraudzības iestādes 2002. gada 25. septembra Lēmumu Nr. 171/02/COL un 2003. gada 5. februāra Lēmumu Nr. 16/03/COL). Saskaņā ar Skattefunn shēmu atbalsts piešķirts nodokļu samazinājuma veidā. Tomēr Norvēģijas valsts iestādes nolēma, ka samazināt ar nodokli apliekamo summu par tādu summu, kura pamatota ar nesamaksātā darba izmaksām, kuras īstenībā nav ne radušās, ne maksātas, nav savienojami ar Norvēģijas vispārējām nodokļu tiesībām

Uzraudzības iestāde ir novērtējusi nesamaksātā pētniecības un attīstības darba shēmu saskaņā ar Valsts atbalsta vadlīnijām attiecībā uz pētniecību un attīstību. Uzraudzības iestāde ir pieņēmusi sākotnēju viedokli, ka saskaņā ar nesamaksātā pētniecības un attīstības darba shēmu piešķirtais atbalsts nav acīmredzams pētniecības un attīstības pasākumu rosinātājs. Šajā ziņā Uzraudzības iestāde atzīst, ka nesamaksātie pētniecības un attīstības pasākumi būtu veikti arī bez atbalsta, jo personas, kuras veica nesamaksāto darbu, acīmredzot bija gatavas jebkurā gadījumā veikt attiecīgo darbu bez maksas. Tādējādi šķiet, ka atbalsts nav nepieciešams, lai sasniegtu mērķi veikt attiecīgos pētniecības un attīstības pasākumus. Turklāt Uzraudzības iestāde uzskata, ka nesamaksātā darba izmaksas nav kvalificējamas kā attaisnotās izmaksas tādā izpratnē, kāda ietverta Valsts atbalsta vadlīnijās attiecībā uz pētniecību un attīstību.

Norvēģijas iestādes ir arī paskaidrojušas, ka daudzi uzņēmumi ir īstenojuši projektus, kas bija apstiprināti saskaņā ar Skattefunn shēmu, bet daži no šiem uzņēmumiem pēc tam nevarēja saņemt nodokļu samazinājumu (vai arī tiem bija jāmaksā summa atbilstoši jau saņemtajam nodokļu samazinājumam) tāpēc, ka bija veikts nesamaksātais darbs. Tādēļ Norvēģijas iestādes ieviesa shēmu ar nolūku kompensēt uzņēmumiem finanšu zaudējumus, kas tiem radušies saistībā ar pētniecības un attīstības projektiem laika posmā no 2002. līdz 2004. gadam, tā iemesla dēļ, ka nesamaksāto darbu nevarēja aptvert ar Skattefunn shēmu.

Kompensācija, kas jāsamaksā minētajam nolūkam, tiks izmaksāta kā de minimis atbalsts un, ja kādam pieteicējam sniegtā de minimis atbalsta kopsumma trīs gadu laika periodā ir lielāka nekā EUR 100 000, tad kompensācija tiks samazināta. Turklāt pieteikuma iesniedzējiem jāsniedz pilnīgs pārskats par visām de minimis atbalsta summām, ko tas saņēmis kopš 2003. gada 1. janvāra. Tādēļ Uzraudzības iestāde ir pieņēmusi sākotnēju viedokli, ka uz kompensācijas shēmu attiecas de minimis regulā (1) noteiktais de minimis slieksnis.

---

(1)  Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 69/2001 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam (OV L 10, 13.1.2001., 30. lpp.), kas ar Apvienotās komitejas Lēmumu Nr. 88/2002 (OV L 266, 3.10.2002., 56. lpp. un EEZ pielikumā Nr. 49, 3.10.2002., 42. lpp) ietverta EEZ līguma XV pielikuma 1.e iedaļā.

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 59/06/COL

of 8 March 2006

to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to financial support to unpaid labour in research and development activities

(NORWAY)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 thereof and Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 thereof,

Having regard to the Authority's Guidelines (3) on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, and in particular Chapter 14 thereof on aid for research and development,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

By letter dated 14 October 2005 from the Norwegian Mission to the European Union, forwarding a letter from the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry, dated 5 October 2005, both received and registered by the Authority on 17 October 2005 (Event no: 346675), the Norwegian authorities notified, pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, a proposal for a new scheme for State aid to support unpaid labour in research and development activities. The newly proposed scheme is referred to in the following as the ‘Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme’.

By letter dated 27 October 2005 (Event no: 348209), the Authority acknowledged receipt of the notification.

By letter dated 13 December 2005 the Authority requested additional information according to Article 5(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (Event no: 348961). The Norwegian authorities responded by letter dated 10 January 2006, enclosed in a letter from the Norwegian Mission to the European Union, dated 13 January 2006, both received and registered by the Authority on 16 January 2006 (Event no: 358121).

2.   Description of the proposed measures

2.1.   The objective, legal basis and function of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme

It appears from legislative preparatory works that the overall objective of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is to stimulate increased investments in research and development activities, particularly by small companies, such as entrepreneur and one-man enterprises (4). More specifically, the objective of the new scheme is to stimulate efforts by individuals in research and development oriented companies which, in the start-up phase, often are dependent on work resources that cannot be paid for. Research and development oriented companies are considered by the Norwegian authorities to be important for purposes of value creation derived from research as well as for innovation.

On a more detailed level, the Norwegian authorities have explained that the introduction of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme was motivated by the fact that under the existing ‘Skattefunn Scheme’ (5), it is not possible to support unpaid labour in research and development activities undertaken by entrepreneur and one-man enterprises due to the fact that the Skattefunn Scheme is a tax deduction scheme (6). In this respect the authorities have explained that under the Skattefunn Scheme aid is granted to research and development activities in the form of a tax deduction (or tax credit) whereby an amount, corresponding to a percentage of the eligible costs, is deducted from the amount due in tax by the company. However, the Norwegian authorities considered that it would not be in compliance with general tax legislation to deduct, in the amount to be paid in tax, an amount which is not based on actual eligible costs but rather on unpaid labour ‘costs’ which have not been incurred in reality. On this basis it was considered that unpaid labour costs could not qualify as eligible costs under the Skattefunn Scheme.

It is against this background that the Norwegian authorities proposed the establishment of a new Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme under which financial support is to be awarded to unpaid labour in research and development activities in the form of grants which are exempt from tax. As such the Norwegian authorities consider the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme as a mere correction or supplement to the existing Skattefunn Scheme.

The Norwegian authorities have further explained that many companies have been in charge of projects that were approved under the Skattefunn Scheme but that some of these companies were subsequently prevented from receiving the tax deduction (or had to pay an amount corresponding to an already received tax deduction) due to the fact that unpaid labour was involved. As a result the profitability of entrepreneurs and one-man enterprises has been affected negatively. It is against this background that the Norwegian authorities adopted a decision to introduce a compensation scheme (the ‘Compensation Scheme’) for purposes of compensating companies for financial losses caused to their research and development projects during the years between 2002-2004 as a result of the fact that unpaid labour could not be covered by the Skattefunn Scheme (7). However, the Norwegian authorities consider that the Compensation Scheme does not form part of the notification in the present case as it falls under the de minimis threshold in the ‘de minimis Regulation’ (8).

In a proposition on the fiscal budget from the Norwegian Government to the Norwegian Parliament (9), which was followed up by a Recommendation from a Parliamentary Committee to the Parliament (10), the Government proposed to grant a budget of a total amount of NOK 70 million for the establishment of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme as well as the Compensation Scheme. The budget was approved by the Parliament on 17 June 2005.

In parallel, the Government presented a proposal to the Parliament in order to amend the Norwegian Act on Taxation of wealth and income for purposes of introducing provisions on tax treatment and ceilings in respect of the grants to be awarded under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme’) (11). The proposal was furthered in a Recommendation from the Finance Committee in the Parliament (12). On 17 June 2005 the Norwegian Parliament adopted the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (13).

Aside from the adoption of the budget and the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, the measure intended to govern the new scheme in practice consists of draft guidelines on the implementation of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme’).

Finally, as regards the Compensation Scheme, the Norwegian authorities have proposed a Royal Decree on the implementation of the Compensation Scheme as well as the authorities' plan to prepare and issue draft Guidelines on the functioning of the Compensation Scheme (14).

It appears from the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme that eligible projects must involve research and development activities performed by individuals who are not receiving any pay or other compensation for their labour. Individuals who receive payment by means of other public sources are not covered (15).

As regards the type of the projects covered by the scheme, it appears moreover from the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme that eligible projects must be aimed (but also limited to) providing new information, knowledge or experience that is presumed to be of use to the enterprise in connection with the development of new or better products, services or production methods. Moreover, activities where results from industrial research are transferred into a plan, a project or a design for new enhanced products, services or production processes, and the development of a first prototype or pilot project that cannot be commercially exploited are also eligible activities under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (16). The Norwegian authorities have stated that this definition of eligible research and development projects is identical to the definition of eligible research and development projects under the existing Skattefunn Scheme. In fact, in practice the Norwegian authorities refer to eligible projects under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme as projects which meet the ‘Skattefunn criteria’ or have been approved under the Skattefunn Scheme (17).

The Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is administered and implemented by ‘Norges forskningsråd’. The latter body is also the secretariat and the administering body, assessing whether projects are eligible under the Skattefunn scheme (18). The Norwegian authorities have explained that the fact that the definition of eligible research and development activities are defined in the same manner under both the Skattefunn Scheme and the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, and that the administering body, assessing whether the projects qualify as eligible, is the same under both schemes, means that for purposes of implementation the two schemes are also closely coordinated. In this regard applicants applying for support to eligible research and development activities must complete one single application form only in which the applicant has had the option to tick off whether support is sought for paid or unpaid labour in the relevant research and development activities (19). Moreover, financial support to be granted under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme will be taken into account when applicants also request support under the Skattefunn Scheme and is also limited by the maximum limit for support under the latter scheme (20). In fact, according to the Norwegian authorities the only difference between the two schemes is the type of eligible costs (i.e., paid as opposed to unpaid labour) and the form in which support is granted (i.e., a tax deduction as opposed to a grant).

2.2.   Recipients

The Norwegian authorities have explained that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is open to all tax payers with tax liability in Norway, including all enterprises, irrespectively of their size and sector (21). Recipients may include undertakings jointly participating in a co-operation project (22).

The Norwegian authorities have explained that the reason that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme includes medium-sized and large companies is to keep it in conformity with the conditions of the Skattefunn Scheme (which is open to all enterprises regardless of size) (23). However, the Norwegian authorities have also made it clear that, in practice, the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is intended to target only entrepreneur firms and one-man enterprises: ‘Even if the scheme includes enterprises of all sizes, the very nature of the scheme (support for unpaid labour) implies that the incentive effect will be most significant for entrepreneur-firms and one-man enterprises.’
   (24) In the same vein the authorities have stated that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is ‘...primarily targeting newly established technology-based companies with no ability to pay salaries to the individuals performing the R&D activity.’ and ‘As the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme shall give support to unpaid labour performed by R&D personnel not receiving salary or other compensation for the labour, the scheme will not be relevant for ordinary medium-sized and large companies.’
   (25)

On this basis the Norwegian authorities have stated that ‘Companies with an annual turnover or an annual balance sheet total corresponding to the ESA definition of medium-sized companies will in practise not receive support for unpaid labour.’ The reason for this is that, according to the Norwegian authorities, ‘Larger companies generally use employed and paid R&D personnel to perform the actual R&D activity in a Skattefunn-project.’ and ‘The costs of paying these employees will be eligible for tax-refund in the Skattefunn Scheme, and such companies will therefore neither have need nor basis for applying for subsidy from the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.’ (26)

Finally, the Norwegian authorities point out that the maximum limit for support to an eligible project is the same both in case support is granted exclusively in the form of a tax deduction under the Skattefunn Scheme or by a combination of a tax deduction and a grant under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme. There is therefore no incentive for large companies to obtain support from both schemes. By contrast, research and development activities performed by companies which only rely on unpaid labour will not be eligible for support under the Skattefunn Scheme.

2.3.   Eligible costs and aid intensity

Under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, eligible expenditure consists of the unpaid labour costs in an eligible project (27). In terms of identifying the appropriate wage rate(s) for the unpaid labour, the Norwegian authorities have explained that as formal qualifications of an individual are not always reflected in the ability to carry out research and development projects, it was difficult to identify separate wage rates which correspond to relevant education, experience and field of work. It was therefore decided to use one common rate for the calculation of support under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

The hourly rate is based on 1,6 ‰ of the nominal annual industrial worker salary which for the year of 2005 results in an hourly rate of NOK 550. However, as a mark-up for social and overhead/administrative costs for purposes of unpaid labour costs was considered exaggerated, it was decided to use one common hourly rate of NOK 500 for unpaid labour performed in 2005 (28). The hourly rate of NOK 500 may be subject to adjustment by the Ministry of Trade and Industry on the basis of general wage developments.

As regards a ceiling on the eligible costs, it appears from the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme that the unpaid labour costs eligible for financial support is subject to a fixed ceiling of NOK 2 million annually per undertaking (29).

Finally, as regards control measures, the unpaid labour and the rest of the project costs must be certified by an accountant (30). The Norwegian authorities have explained that as there is no evidence of reported hours in unpaid labour, companies are required to record the date, tasks, number of hours spent and the name of the relevant individual. In projects with more than one individual, the records must be signed both by the individual having carried out the unpaid labour and the individual responsible for the project. The reported number of hours may be reduced if it is deemed to be out of proportion of what may be considered as ‘normal’ in comparable projects.

The Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme provide that grants awarded under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme are subject to the thresholds set out in Section 16-40 of the Norwegian Act on Taxation of wealth and income (31). The latter provision is the basis for the Skattefunn Scheme and provides that eligible projects may be supported with aid intensities of up to 18 % or alternatively 20 % in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises ‘SMEs’ (that is, the support may amount to 18 % or 20 % of eligible costs).

The Norwegian authorities first stated that this means that the net aid intensities under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme are 18 % and 20 % (for SMEs) which correspond to gross aid intensities of respectively 25 % and 27,8 % (for SMEs) (32). However, the authorities have subsequently explained and confirmed that since the support under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is paid in the form of a grant, 18 % and 20 % (for SMEs) constitute gross aid intensities (33). The grants are exempt from corporate tax, the rate of which is currently 28 %. Finally, the Norwegian authorities have confirmed that in view of the fact that the ceiling for eligible unpaid labour costs is NOK 2 million, and that the aid intensities are 18 % and 20 % (for SMEs), the aid ceilings in absolute figures are NOK 360 000 and NOK 400 000 (for SMEs) on an annual basis (34).

The grants awarded under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme are considered in conjunction with aid received under the Skattefunn Scheme. In this respect it appears from the proposed and adopted Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (35) that if, in an eligible project, it can be concluded that the total amount of the tax deduction (under the Skattefunn Scheme) and the grant (under the R&D Labour Scheme) exceeds the limits set forth in the Skattefunn scheme, the tax deduction will be diminished. The Norwegian authorities have explained that under the Skattefunn Scheme the total amount of support may not exceed 18 % or 20 % (for SMEs) of eligible costs, and the eligible costs may not be in excess of NOK 4 million. The Norwegian authorities have also clarified that these limits are, however, without prejudice to the fact that the costs of unpaid labour must still be within the abovementioned ceiling of NOK 2 million. Finally the authorities have explained that in case grants under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme and public support from sources, other than the Skattefunn Scheme, are the cause of exceeding the limit for total support, a reduction in the support granted under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme will be made.

2.4.   De minimis

As stated above, the Norwegian authorities consider that the Compensation Scheme does not form part of the notification as it falls under the de minimis threshold under the ‘de minimis Regulation’ (36).

Section 6 of the Royal Decree on the Compensation Scheme provides that the compensation will be calculated on the basis of an hourly rate of NOK 500 and that it must constitute 18 % or 20 % (for SMEs) of the costs for unpaid labour in eligible projects. The total amount of eligible costs may not exceed NOK 4 million in the relevant financial year where research and development is carried out by the undertaking itself or NOK 8 million in case of research and development activities carried out by research institutions (37).

The Norwegian authorities have stated that Article 3(1) of the de minimis Regulation has been complied with by virtue of a reference to the de minimis character of the compensation in Section 8 of the Royal Decree on the Compensation Scheme. The latter provision provides that compensation will be paid out as de minimis aid in accordance with the ‘de minimis Regulation’; and that if the total amount of de minimis aid to the applicant exceeds Euro 100 000 during a period of three years, the compensation will be reduced. Applicants which cannot receive de minimis aid cannot claim to be entitled to receive compensation under the Royal Decree on the Compensation Scheme (38).

Applicants requesting compensation must submit an overview of the total amount of all tax deductions received under the Skattefunn Scheme during the years for which compensation is sought as well as a complete overview of all de minimis aid received by the applicant as of 1 January 2003 (39). Applicants must request compensation within six weeks of the publication of the Royal Decree on the Compensation Scheme (40). The compensation will be paid out in the form of lump sums during 2006.

2.5.   Budget and duration

It appears from legislative preparatory works on the fiscal budget that out of a total amount of NOK 70 million, financed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry for 2005, NOK 60 million is the budget for the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (of which NOK 5 million is for administration costs) while NOK 10 million is the budget for the Compensation Scheme (41).

The Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is not limited in time. In this respect the Norwegian authorities have stated that as the objective of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is to stimulate unpaid research and development activities to the same extent as paid research and development activities are stimulated under the Skattefunn Scheme, the time frame for the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme must be the same as that for the Skattefunn Scheme. In this respect it appears from the Authority's approval of amendments to the Skattefunn Scheme that the Skattefunn Scheme is not limited in time (42). However, just as under the Skattefunn Scheme, the continuation of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is dependent on the approval of an annual budget each year (43).

II.   APPRECIATION

1.   Procedural requirements

Pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. [...]. The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.

By means of a letter dated 5 October 2005, the Norwegian authorities have submitted a notification for purposes of introducing the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme under which financial support may be granted to unpaid labour in research and development activities.

As regards the entry into force of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, it appears from legislative preparatory works (on the budget) that entry into force of the scheme is dependent on what would be determined in the context of adopting the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (44). The Norwegian authorities therefore consider the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme as the legal measure determining when the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme enters into force. It appears from the adopted Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme that the Ministry of Finance decides when the law enters into force. It appears, moreover, from the relevant preparatory legislative works that this provision is based on the prerequisite that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme must be notified to, and approved by, the Authority before entering into force (45). Subject to approval by the Authority the original objective was to have the scheme enter into force during the autumn of 2005 (46).

In these circumstances — where the power of the Ministry of Finance to command the entry into force of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is subject to the condition of obtaining a prior approval by the Authority — the Authority considers that the Norwegian authorities have respected its notification requirement pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

2.   The presence of State aid

2.1.   State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:

‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’

To be termed aid, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement a measure must meet the following four cumulative criteria: The measure must (i) confer on recipients an economic advantage which is not received in the normal course of business; (ii) the advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources and must (iii) be selective by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; and (iv) distort competition and affect trade between Contracting Parties. In the following it is examined whether the four cumulative criteria are met in the present case.

2.2.   Economic advantage

The measure must confer on recipients an economic advantage which is not received in the normal course of business.

Under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme the Norwegian authorities will award financial grants to tax payers, including all enterprises. The recipients of such grants therefore receive an economic advantage, i.e., a grant, which they would not have received in their normal course of business.

Moreover, recipients of grants are exempted from paying corporate tax on the grants. The tax exemption relieves recipients from a charge that is normally borne out of their budgets and they therefore receive one further economic advantage in addition to the grant.

2.3.   Presence of State resources

The measure must be granted by the State or through State resources.

The grants awarded under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme are financed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and are therefore financed by the State.

Moreover, with respect to the exemption of grants from corporate tax, a tax exemption means that the State foregoes tax revenue and a loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure (47).

47

2.4.   Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods

The measure must be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.

‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.

In its decision (16/03/COL) of 5 February 2003 in which the Authority assessed a notified amendment to the Skattefunn Scheme for purposes of extending the scheme to be open to all undertakings, irrespective of their size and sector, the Authority considered that the bodies administering and implementing the Skattefunn Scheme (i.e., ‘Statens nærings- og distriktsutviklingsfond’ and‘Norges forskningsråd’), enjoyed discretionary powers for purposes of assessing the research character of the projects and the incentive effect of the support measure.

In view of the above and the fact that the criteria for determining the eligibility of projects under the Skattefunn Scheme and the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme are the same and are assessed by the same administering body, i.e., Norges forskningsråd, the Authority takes the view that the latter enjoys discretionary powers also for purposes of implementing the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme. This means that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is, de facto, selective. In this regard the Authority recalls that the European Court of Justice has held that discretionary powers enjoyed by the public authorities, administering a financial support scheme, means that the scheme is, de facto, selective (48).

48

In addition hereto, it is recalled that the Norwegian authorities state that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme will, in practice, only favour one-man enterprises and entrepreneur firms. To the extent that this means that Norges forskningsråd will also implement the R&D Labour Scheme in this manner (i.e., by turning down applications for support from medium-sized or large companies), the Authority considers that this is a mere confirmation of the fact that Norges forskningsråd enjoys discretionary powers and that the scheme is, de facto, selective (in favour of one-man enterprises and entrepreneur firms). Indeed the statement of the Norwegian authorities that ‘...there is no

  formal

  discrimination against larger companies in the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme's definition of beneficiaries.’ (emphasis added) could be an indication that the scheme is to be implemented in the above-stated manner.

‘...there is no

formal

discrimination against larger companies in the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme's definition of beneficiaries.’

Finally, the assessment set out above is equally valid for the exemption from corporate tax enjoyed by recipients of grants under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

2.5.   Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

The measure must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.

The Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme covers all sectors of the economy established in Norway. In view of the fact that for the year of 2006 exports to the EU will represent about 70 % out of total exports from Norway, whereas imports from the EU will represent approximately 68 % out of total imports to Norway, there is extensive trade between Norway and the EU (49).

49

In such circumstances, the Authority considers that the grant of support and the connected tax exemption in favour of undertakings under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme will strengthen the relative position of recipients compared to other undertakings located in other EEA countries and competing in similar sectors or businesses. Furthermore, in case the administering body of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme may indeed preclude larger companies from receiving support, the position of one-man enterprises and entrepreneur companies, receiving support under the scheme will be reinforced compared to any larger companies which would be denied support. The Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is therefore to be regarded as affecting trade and distorting or threatening to distort competition.

2.6.   Conclusion

In light of the above, the preliminary conclusion of the Authority is that the grant of support, including the tax exemption under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, satisfies the test of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and hence involves State aid.

3.   Compatibility of the aid and de minimis aid

de minimis

As the preliminary conclusion of the Authority is that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme satisfies the test of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and hence involves State aid, it has to be examined whether the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement under Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.

3.1.   Compatibility with Article 61(2) of the EEA Agreement

It appears that none of the exceptions under Article 61(2) apply in this case as the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is not aimed at the objectives listed in those provisions.

3.2.   Compatibility with Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement

A State aid measure is considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement under Article 61(3)(a) when it is designed to promote the economic development where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment. However, as no such areas are defined by the Norwegian regional aid map, this provision does not apply (50).

50

Moreover, the exception in Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement does not apply since the State aid granted under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of Norway.

However, the exception laid down in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement which provides that State aid may be considered compatible with the common market where it facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be applicable.

In the following the Authority considers the compatibility of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme with the functioning of the EEA Agreement under Article 61(3)(c) by virtue of Chapter 14 in the State Aid Guidelines on aid for research and development.

(i)   Eligible research and development projects and aid intensities

In Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines aid granted to firms for research and development may be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. Chapter 14 sets out indicative definitions of different types of research and development, such as ‘fundamental research’, ‘industrial research’ and ‘precompetitive development activity’ and the aid intensities which apply.

‘fundamental research’

‘industrial research’

precompetitive development activity’

It appears from paragraph 2 of Chapter 14.2.1 that by ‘precompetitive development activity’ is meant ‘the shaping of the results of industrial research into a plan, arrangement or design for new, altered or improved products, processes or services, whether they are intended to be sold or used, including the creation of an initial prototype which could not be used commercially. This may also include the conceptual formulation and design of other products, processes or services and initial demonstration projects or pilot projects, provided that such projects cannot be converted or used for industrial applications or commercial exploitation. It does not include the routine or periodic changes made to products, production lines, manufacturing processes, existing services and other operations in progress, even if such changes may represent improvements.’

‘precompetitive development activity’

‘the shaping of the results of industrial research into a plan, arrangement or design for new, altered or improved products, processes or services, whether they are intended to be sold or used, including the creation of an initial prototype which could not be used commercially. This may also include the conceptual formulation and design of other products, processes or services and initial demonstration projects or pilot projects, provided that such projects cannot be converted or used for industrial applications or commercial exploitation. It does not include the routine or periodic changes made to products, production lines, manufacturing processes, existing services and other operations in progress, even if such changes may represent improvements.’

The Authority considers that the description of eligible projects under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, set out above in Section 2.1 of Part I hereof, seems to be in line with the description given of ‘pre-competitive development activity’ in paragraph 2 of Chapter 14.2.1 of the State Aid Guidelines.

‘pre-competitive development activity’

According to paragraph five of Chapter 14.5.1 of the State Aid Guidelines, the permissible gross aid intensity for pre-competitive development activities is fixed at 25 % of eligible costs. Moreover, according to paragraph one of Chapter 14.5.3 of the State Aid Guidelines, an extra 10 percentage points may be granted where the aid is given to SMEs (as defined in the Annex to the block exemption on aid to SMEs), bringing the aid intensity up to 35 % of eligible costs in the case of pre-competitive activities by SMEs (51).

51

Since the support granted under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is paid in the form of a grant, 18 % and 20 % (for SMEs) constitute gross aid intensities. However, the fact that the grant is tax exempt is a further aid element, the value of which corresponds to the current tax rate of 28 %. In the present case the total gross aid intensity corresponds, therefore, to the combined maximum value of the grant and the tax exemption which is 23,04 % and 25,6 % (for SMEs) (52). The Authority therefore considers that the maximum aid intensities of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme are currently on an acceptable level by reference to Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines. However, if the corporate tax rate should be increased, the total gross aid intensity may become higher. Therefore, in the absence of any general aid intensity ceilings which ensure that individual aid awards under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme do not exceed the aid intensities set out in Chapter 14.5.1 of the State Aid Guidelines, the Authority cannot be reassured that the aid intensities, which may result from the application of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, will be on an acceptable level by reference to Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines also in the future. On this basis the Authority has doubts that the aid intensities resulting from the application of the Unpaid R&D Aid Scheme may be considered as compatible on the basis of Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines.

52

(ii)   Eligible costs and incentive effect

Section 14.6 of the State Aid Guidelines sets out a list of costs which are to be regarded as eligible for purposes of calculating the aid intensity set out in Chapter 14. One of such cost items is personnel costs which cover the costs of researchers, technicians and other supporting staff employed solely for the research activity.

While section 14.6 of the State Aid Guidelines does not elaborate on whether personnel costs may cover costs of unpaid labour, the Authority considers that when the word ‘costs’ has been used without any further explanation it means that the intention was only to cover the situation where costs have actually been incurred and paid. Moreover, for purposes of interpreting Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines, which are based on the research and development guidelines established by the European Commission, (53) the Authority considers it relevant that under the Community Research Framework Programmes, financial support from the Community for unpaid labour costs cannot be obtained (54). In this context the European Commission has adopted the view that if the value of the labour costs cannot be identified and registered in the books of the company it cannot be charged to the Framework Programme either (55).

53

54

55

As regards the incentive effect, it appears from section 14.7 of the State Aid Guidelines that aid for research and development should serve as an incentive for firms to undertake research and development activities in addition to their normal day-to-day operations or it may encourage firms not carrying out research and development to undertake such activities. Where the incentive effect is not evident the Authority may consider such aid less favourably than it usually does.

In the present case the Authority considers that it is doubtful whether the aid awarded under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme may be considered as an evident incentive to carry out research and development activities in line with section 14.7 of the State Aid Guidelines. In this respect the Authority takes the preliminary view that unpaid research and development activities would be carried out in any event, i.e., even without the aid, since the individuals carrying out unpaid labour were apparently prepared to undertake the relevant work without pay in any event. In other words, the Authority considers that the aid appears not to be necessary in order to achieve the aim of having the relevant research and development activities carried out.

Moreover, to the extent that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme would also apply to larger companies, it is clear that such companies could (over time) (re-)organise their research and development activities into basing themselves on using unpaid labour instead of paid labour due to knowledge of the fact that support for unpaid labour may be obtained. In such circumstances it is certain that the support under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is not the incentive for undertaking the relevant research and development activity. In this context the Authority considers that the fact that the company may — for the same project — obtain a tax deduction under the Skattefunn Scheme (by using paid labour) is irrelevant because the reason for using unpaid labour in these cases would precisely be that it is financially more attractive to obtain support for paying the labour than a tax deduction in respect of already paid labour.

On this basis the Authority takes the preliminary view that it is doubtful whether the unpaid labour costs qualify as eligible costs and whether there is any incentive effect under the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme. In light of the comments set out above, the Norwegian authorities are invited to submit reasons as to why it may be considered that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme does create an incentive to carry out research and development activities and on what basis unpaid labour costs should qualify as eligible costs.

3.3.   Conclusions

In view of the fact that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme appears not to qualify for any of the exceptions provided for in the EEA Agreement, the Authority doubts that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

3.4.   De minimis aid: The Compensation Scheme

The grant of State aid may qualify as de minimis under the ‘de minimis Regulation’ where the total aid granted to any one enterprise does not exceed Euro 100 000 over any three-year period with the consequence that there is no obligation to notify (56). It appears from Article 3(1) of the de minimis Regulation that the national authorities can only grant de minimis aid after first having verified that the total amount of de minimis aid received by the company is not raised beyond the ceiling by virtue of other de minimis aid having been received during the previous three years. One way of verifying the de minimis threshold is by obtaining full information from the recipient on this matter.

de minimis

de minimis

56

de minimis

de minimis

de minimis

de minimis

de minimis

In the present case compensation under the Compensation Scheme will be paid out as de minimis aid and if the total amount of de minimis aid to an applicant exceeds Euro 100 000during a period of three years, the compensation will be reduced. Moreover, the Norwegian authorities will obtain from the applicants, via their applications requesting compensation, an overview of the total amount of all tax deductions received by the applicant under the Skattefunn Scheme during the years for which compensation is sought, as well as a complete overview of all de minimis aid the applicant has received as of 1 January 2003.

de minimis

de minimis

de minimis

On the basis of the above and on the assumption that the Norwegian authorities will not grant de minimis aid under the Compensation Scheme where it is clear that the de minmis threshold has been or will, as a result of the new grant, be exceeded, the Authority considers that the Compensation Scheme is in compliance with the de minimis Regulation, including the requirement of verifying that the potential recipient has not received other de minimis aid in excess of the relevant ceiling.

de minimis

de minmis

de minimis

de minimis

On the basis of the information available, the Authority therefore takes the preliminary view that the aid granted to undertakings under the Compensation Scheme will qualify as de minimis aid.

de minimis

III.   CONCLUSION

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority cannot exclude that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, in combination with the requirements laid down in Chapter 14 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines. Consequently, the Authority has doubts that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, requests the Norwegian authorities to submit its comments and to provide all such information which may help to assess the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, within one month of the date of receipt of this decision.

one month

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| 1. | The Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement against Norway with regard to the ‘Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement against Norway with regard to the ‘Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme’.

| 2. | The Norwegian authorities are requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this decision and to provide all such information which may help to assess the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Norwegian authorities are requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this decision and to provide all such information which may help to assess the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

| 3. | Other EFTA States, EC Member States, and interested parties shall be informed by means of publication of this decision in its authentic language version, accompanied by a meaningful summary in languages other than the authentic language version, in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of publication. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Other EFTA States, EC Member States, and interested parties shall be informed by means of publication of this decision in its authentic language version, accompanied by a meaningful summary in languages other than the authentic language version, in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of publication.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 4. | This decision is authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

4.

This decision is authentic in the English language.

| 5. | This decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway. |
| --- | --- |

5.

This decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Done at Brussels, 8 March 2006

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Bjørn T. GRYDELAND

President

Kurt JAEGER

College Member

---

(1)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘EEA Agreement’.

1

(2)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Surveillance and Court Agreement’.

2

(3)  Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid — Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1, EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.94, p.1, last amended by the Authority's Decision No 329/05/COL of 20 December 2005 on financing of airports and start up aid to airlines (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Aid Guidelines’).

3

(4)  Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005).

4

(5)  The Skattefunn Scheme was approved by the Authority in its Decision No 171/02/COL of 25 September 2002 and amendments to the Skattefunn Scheme were approved by the Authority in its Decision No 16/03/COL of 5 February 2003.

5

(6)  The terms used by the Norwegian authorities for the mentioned company forms are ‘gründerselskaper’ and‘enkeltpersonforetak’.

6

gründerselskaper

‘enkeltpersonforetak’

(7)  The Compensation Scheme is described in section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005).

7

(8)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30), incorporated into Annex XV in Section 1(e) to the EEA Agreement by means of Joint Committee Decision No 88/2002 (OJ L 266, 3.10.2002, p. 56 and EEA Supplement No 49, 3.10.2002, p. 42).

8

de minimis

(9)  Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005): Chapter 928, item 71 concerns the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme and Chapter 1500, item 73 concerns the Compensation Scheme.

9

(10)  Innst. S. No 240 (2004-2005): Section 10.1.1.2, Chapter 928, item 71 concerns the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme; and Section 16.2.4, Chapter 1500, item 73 concerns the Compensation Scheme.

10

(11)  Section 14.1 of Ot. prp. No 92 (2004-2005) which also refers to the original budget proposition in St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005).

11

(12)  Section 15.1 of Innst. O. No 125 (2004-2005).

12

(13)  ‘Lov 2005-06-17 nr 74: Lov om endringer i lov 26. mars 1999 No 14 om skatt av formue og inntekt (skatteloven).’

13

‘Lov 2005-06-17 nr 74: Lov om endringer i lov 26. mars 1999 No 14 om skatt av formue og inntekt (skatteloven).’

(14)  ‘Forskrift om kompensasjon for ulønnet arbeidsinnsats i Skattefunn-godkjente forsknings- og utviklingsprosjekter for inntektsårene 2002, 2003 og 2004’. The draft Guidelines is intended to be based on ‘Høringsnotat om utkast til forskrift om kompensasjon for ulønnet arbeidsinnsats i Skattefunn-godkjente forsknings- og utviklingsprojsekt for inntektsårene 2002, 2003 og 2004.’ (in the following referred to as ‘Høringsnotat’).

14

‘Forskrift om kompensasjon for ulønnet arbeidsinnsats i Skattefunn-godkjente forsknings- og utviklingsprosjekter for inntektsårene 2002, 2003 og 2004’

‘Høringsnotat om utkast til forskrift om kompensasjon for ulønnet arbeidsinnsats i Skattefunn-godkjente forsknings- og utviklingsprojsekt for inntektsårene 2002, 2003 og 2004.’

Høringsnotat

(15)  Section 6 of Part III.6.A in the Standard Notification Form and Section 3 of the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

15

(16)  Section 6 of Part I in the Standard Notification Form and Section 3 of the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme. However, ordinary business oriented product development without having the character of research are not encompassed, such as projects that have a continuing character or include modification of methods without requiring the development of new knowledge or the use of existing knowledge in new ways, are of an organisational character, or consist of inquires, etc.

16

(17)  Section 3 of the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme; and Section IX of the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

17

(18)  Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005), Section 14.1 of Ot. prp. No 92 (2004-2005) and the introduction to the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

18

(19)  Section 7 of the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

19

(20)  See further Section 2.3 herein below on ‘Eligible costs and aid intensity’.

20

(21)  See also Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005) where it is stated that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is addressed to one-man enterprises, limited companies and other types of companies.

21

(22)  In this case the cost frame of the project is allocated to the participants in proportion to their share of participation.

22

(23)  The Norwegian authorities have in this context stated that ‘This is also why there is no formal discrimination against larger companies in the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme's definition of beneficiaries.’ (emphasis added).

23

‘This is also why there is no formal discrimination against larger companies in the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme's definition of beneficiaries.’

(24)  Section 8.1 in Part III.6.A of the Standard Notification form.

24

(25)  Letter, dated 10 January 2006, from the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry.

25

(26)  Letter dated 10 January 2006, from the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry.

26

(27)  Section 6 of Part III.6.A of the Standard Notification form.

27

(28)  A similar method is applied in the context of the Skattefunn Scheme where the basis for the calculation of support to personnel and indirect costs per hour is 1,6‰ of the nominal salary. However, under the Skattefunn Scheme the nominal salary also includes social and overhead/administrative costs.

28

(29)  Section 3 of the draft Guidelines on Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme. It appears from Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005) that the ceiling is a result of the fact that only up to 50 % of the maximum limit for support to projects (carried out by the undertaking itself) under the Skattefunn scheme (of NOK 4 million) may constitute the value of unpaid labour in the project.

29

(30)  Section 4 of the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

30

(31)  Section 3 of the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

31

(32)  Section 7 of Part III.6.A of the Standard Notification form.

32

(33)  This should be compared to the situation under the Skattefunn Scheme where the Authority considered in its Decision No 171/02/COL of 25 September 2002 (approving the Skattefunn Scheme) that as the aid is granted in the form of a tax deduction, the 18 % is a net grant which corresponds to a gross aid intensity of 25 % (taking into account a tax rate of 28 %).

33

(34)  Section 3 of the Guidelines on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme and Section 6 of Part I in the Standard Notification form.

34

(35)  Section 14.2.1 of Ot. prp. No 92 (2004-2005) and Section IX of the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme.

35

(36)  Article 2(1) of the de minimis Regulation, see reference in footnote 8 above.

36

de minimis

(37)  Section 7 of the Royal Decree on the Compensation Scheme.

37

(38)  It appears from the ‘Høringsnotat’ that this statement refers to Article 1 of the de minimis Regulation which lists sectors and activities excluded from receiving de minimis aid.

38

‘Høringsnotat’

de minimis

de minimis

(39)  Section 9(h) and (i) of the Royal Decree on the Compensation Scheme.

39

(40)  See Section 3 of the Royal Decree on the Compensation Scheme and the second paragraph in the ‘Høringsnotat’.

40

‘Høringsnotat’

(41)  Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005) and Section 5 in Part I of the Standard Notification form.

41

(42)  Decision No 16/03/COL adopted by the Authority on 5 February 2003. The Skattefunn Scheme is currently the subject of an evaluation (to be terminated in 2007) for purposes of determining whether the scheme should be continued in its present form, be altered or terminated.

42

(43)  Section 5 in Part I of the Standard Notification form.

43

(44)  Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005).

44

(45)  Section 14.3 of Ot. prp. No 92 (2004-2005) which refers to Section 3.9 of St. prp. No 65 (2004-2005).

45

(46)  See Section 7.2 in Part I of the Standard Notification form.

46

(47)  See point 3 of Chapter 17.B.3 of the State Aid Guidelines.

47

(48)  See Case 241/94 France v Commission [1998] ECR I-7907, paragraphs 23 and 24; Case C-295/97 Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio SpA v International Factors Italia SpA (Ifitalia), Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH and Ministero della Difesa [1999] ECR I-3735, paragraph 39; Case 200/97 Ecotrade Srl v Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) [1998] ECR I-7907, paragraph 40.

48

France

Commission

Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio SpA

International Factors Italia SpA (Ifitalia), Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH and Ministero della Difesa

Ecotrade Srl

Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS

(49)  The relevant statistics have been issued by ‘Statistisk Sentralbyrå’ and are entitled ‘Samhandelen med land og landområder. Januar. 2005 og 2006.’ (Table 3). The statistics are available at:

49

‘Statistisk Sentralbyrå’

‘Samhandelen med land og landområder. Januar. 2005 og 2006.’

http://www.ssb.no/emner/09/05/muh/tab-2006-02-15-03.html

(50)  The Authority's Decision No 110/98/COL of 28 April 1998 on the map of assisted areas (Norway).

50

(51)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 (OJ L 63, 28.2.2004, p. 22). Both Regulations have been incorporated into Section 1(f) in Annex XV to the EEA Agreement by Joint Committee Decision No 88/2002 (OJ L 266, 3.10.2002, p. 56 and EEA Suppl. No 49, 3.10.2002, p. 42) and Joint Committee Decision No 131/2004 (OJ L 64, 10.3.2005, p. 67 and EEA Supplement No 12, 10.3.2005, p. 49).

51

(52)  18 % and 5,04 % (corresponding to 28 % of 18 %) is in total 23,04 %. For SMEs 20 % and 5.6 % (corresponding to 28 % of 20 %) is in total 25,6 %.

52

(53)  Community framework for State aid for research and development (OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, p. 5) as amended.

53

(54)  The EU's research Framework Programme is the EU's main instrument for research funding in Europe. In Part B.II.22.3 of Annex II to the general model contract used for purposes of granting support under Framework Programme 6, it appears that ‘Physical persons may not charge any labour cost in relation to their personal involvement in the project.’ and in Part B.II.19.1(a) it appears that eligible costs ‘must be actual, economic and necessary for the implementation for the project.’

54

‘Physical persons may not charge any labour cost in relation to their personal involvement in the project.’

‘must be actual, economic and necessary for the implementation for the project.’

(55)  E.g., the Framework Programme 6.

55

(56)  Article 2 of the de minimis Regulation, see reference in footnote 8.

56

de minimis

---

| 26.10.2006 | LV EN | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 258/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

LV EN

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 258/42

---

Uzaicinājums saskaņā ar Nolīguma par Uzraudzību un Tiesu 3. protokola I. daļas 1. panta 2. punktu iesniegt piezīmes par Norvēģijas Pētniecības Padomes piešķirto valsts atbalstu saistībā ar datorprogrammu Turborouter

(2006/C 258/13)

Ar 2006. gada 8. marta Lēmumu Nr. 60/06/COL, kas autentiskā valodā sniegts šim kopsavilkumam pievienotajās lappusēs, EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde ierosināja procesu saskaņā ar EBTA valstu Nolīguma par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi (Nolīgums par Uzraudzību un Tiesu) 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu. Norvēģijas iestādes tika informētas, nosūtot tām lēmuma kopiju.

EBTA iestāde ar šo aicina EBTA valstis, ES dalībvalstis un ieinteresētās personas viena mēneša laikā pēc šā paziņojuma publicēšanas dienas iesniegt savas piezīmes par minēto jautājumu, tās adresējot:

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| Registry |
| 35, Rue Belliard |
| B-1040 Brussels |
| Fakss: (32-2) 286 18 00 |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

35, Rue Belliard

B-1040 Brussels

Fakss: (32-2) 286 18 00

Piezīmes tiks nosūtītas Norvēģijas iestādēm. Ieinteresētā persona, kas iesniedz piezīmes, var rakstveidā lūgt neizpaust tās identitāti, norādot šāda lūguma iemeslus.

KOPSAVILKUMS

Ar 2002. gada 5. marta vēstuli (Dok. Nr. 02-1733-A) Uzraudzības iestāde saņēma sūdzību par to, ka Norvēģija ar Norvēģijas Pētniecības padomes starpniecību (turpmāk tekstā NPP) ir piešķīrusi valsts atbalstu vairākiem pētniecības projektiem saistībā ar datorprogrammas Turborouter izstrādi.

Pēc apjomīgas vēstuļu apmaiņas starp Uzraudzības iestādi un Norvēģijas iestādēm, kā arī sūdzības iesniedzēju Uzraudzības iestāde 2006. gada 8. martā nolēma sākt formālo izmeklēšanas procedūru attiecībā uz sūdzībā norādītajiem projektiem.

NPP bija piešķīrusi finanšu atbalstu Rūpnieciskās pētniecības un attīstības programmas valsts atbalsta shēmas ietvaros četriem datorprogrammas Turborouter izstrādes projektiem. Uzraudzības iestāde bija novērtējusi šo programmu līdz ar citām esošām atbalsta shēmām un 1994. gada decembrī pieņēmusi lēmumu Nr. 217/94/COL, ar ko Norvēģijai ierosināti atbilstoši pasākumi. Norvēģijas iestādes akceptēja atbilstošos pasākumus. Pēc tam, attiecīgi, visiem valsts atbalsta piešķīrumiem saskaņā ar šo shēmu bija jāatbilst Uzraudzības iestādes 1994. gadā pieņemtajām pētniecības un attīstības valsts atbalsta vadlīnijām.

Pamatojoties uz pieejamo informāciju, Uzraudzības iestādei ir šaubas, vai valsts atbalsta piešķiršana minētajiem pētniecības projektiem atbilst pētniecības un attīstības valsts atbalsta vadlīnijām. Ir šaubas par to, vai projekti ir atbilstoši klasificēti. Tas īpaši attiecas uz trīs projektiem, kuri ir atzīti par pirmskonkurences izpētes projektiem, bet varētu būt pārāk tuvu ienākšanai tirgū, lai atbalsts būtu attaisnojams.

Uzraudzības iestādei ir šaubas arī par projekta finansēšanu. Nav skaidrs, vai uzņēmumi, kuri piedalās projektos, patiesi investēja projektu izpētes izmaksās, vai arī parastās uzņēmumu darbības izmaksas bija atzītas par pētniecības projekta daļu. Ja tas tā būtu, tad valsts atbalsta intensitāte būtu jākoriģē.

Šajā kontekstā Uzraudzības iestādei ir šaubas par to, vai atbalsta saņēmēji nav ļaunprātīgi izmantojuši NPP piešķirto atbalstu.

Ja atbalsta piešķīrums minētajiem projektiem neatbilstu rūpnieciskās pētniecības un attīstības programmas shēmai, katrs projekts būtu jāizvērtē atsevišķi, pamatojoties uz atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā spēkā esošajam pētniecības un attīstības atbalsta vadlīnijām vai arī balstoties tieši uz EEZ līguma noteikumiem.

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 60/06/COL

of 8 March 2006

on R&D aid granted by the Research Council of Norway in connection with the development of the software programme Turborouter

(NORWAY)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (3), in particular to Article 24 thereof,

Having regard to Article 1(2) and (3) in Part I and Articles 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 20 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (4),

Having regard to the Authority's Guidelines (5) on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, and in particular Chapter 14 thereof, ‘Aid for Research and Development’,

Having regard to the Authority's Decision of 14 July 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 in Part II of Protocol 3 (6),

Having regard to the Authority's Decision No 217/94/COL of 1 December 1994 to propose appropriate measures to Norway on, amongst others, the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes,

Having regard to Norway's acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures by letter dated 19 December 1994,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

By letter dated 5 March 2002 (Doc. No 02-1733-A), the Authority received a complaint alleging that state aid had been granted by Norway through the Research Council of Norway (hereinafter: ‘the RCN’) to various research projects in connection with the development of the software programme Turborouter.

The Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities by letter dated 26 April 2002 (Doc. No 02-2605-D). The Ministry of Trade and Industry replied by letter dated 3 June 2002 (Doc. No 02-4177-A), which included RCN's comments on the so-called Turborouter project.

In October 2002, a meeting between representatives from the Authority and the Norwegian authorities took place in Oslo in order to clarify some technical aspects.

On 28 February 2003, the Authority requested further clarification and documentation on certain aspects raised during the above-mentioned meeting (Doc. No 03-1159-D). The required information was supplied by the Norwegian authorities by letter dated 11 April 2003 (Doc. No 03-2338 A) and completed by letter of 20 June 2003 (Doc. No 03-4083-A).

Representatives of the Authority and the Norwegian authorities discussed the case at a meeting in the framework of the package meeting which took place in Oslo on 23 September 2004. Some of the issues raised during this meeting were later addressed by the Authority in a letter dated 11 November 2004 (Event No 294194). The Norwegian authorities answered by letter of 31 January 2005 (Event No 307137).

The Authority lastly requested information in a letter dated 7 July 2005 (Event No 323594). The Authority furthermore stated that should the response from the Norwegian authorities not dispel the remaining doubts of the Authority, the formal investigation procedure would have to be opened with respect to the granting of R&D aid in connection with the development of the software programme Turborouter.

The Norwegian authorities replied in a letter dated 22 August 2005 (Event No 331615).

The complainant contacted the Authority on various occasions during the preliminary investigation and submitted additional information.

2.   The complaint

In March 2002, the Authority received a complaint alleging that the RCN had granted R&D aid to ‘projects in the maritime sector that violate the EEA rules. The projects that have received state aid are commercial software programs that are marketed and sold in the international markets. We refer specifically to the software program called TURBOROUTER’.

According to the complainant, the Turborouter programme is distorting the competition with other European or international companies which develop software programmes for the maritime industry. The complainant, who has software products in the same sector, has stated to have invested important sums of money in developing mathematical algorithms, which seem to be similar to the ones used in Turborouter.

The complaint concerns not only the projects that led to the development of a commercial software programme called Turborouter but also its development in several sub-projects. Although the complainant identified Project 136171 Algopt and Project 144214 Optimisation routines, it explicitly stated that the complaint is not limited to these projects but concerns ‘all of these projects that have been targeting the development of a commercial software program called Turborouter’.

The complainant mainly argued that (1) the projects that received aid were too close to the market to be eligible for R&D aid and had been marketed for sale to third companies in Norway and abroad; (2) the research results had not been disseminated but the research institute Marintek, which developed the software programme Turborouter, had received the property rights to sell the programme; (3) the maximum aid intensities had not been respected due to the fact that the own capital contribution from the concerned companies was in reality lower than stated in the application form. The complainant brought forward the following arguments to support the complaint:

| 1) | ‘The RCN has given aid to projects which are very close to the market. Turborouter has for more than two years been actively marketed for sale both domestically in Norway and abroad. This marketing has been done partly by the research institute Marintek and partly by Shipnet, a privately owned commercial vendor of software systems for the maritime industry with which, according to the information submitted by the complainant, Marintek has an agreement. The Turborouter projects cannot be classified into “fundamental research” nor “industrial research” according to the definitions laid down by the EEA. In view of the complainant, the projects are even far beyond pre-competitive development activity. “Turborouter projects are aimed at developing software programs that are developed in close co-operation with a limited number of users, and in parallel is actively marketed towards any maritime company in need of such program”.’ |
| --- | --- |

1)

‘The RCN has given aid to projects which are very close to the market. Turborouter has for more than two years been actively marketed for sale both domestically in Norway and abroad. This marketing has been done partly by the research institute Marintek and partly by Shipnet, a privately owned commercial vendor of software systems for the maritime industry with which, according to the information submitted by the complainant, Marintek has an agreement. The Turborouter projects cannot be classified into “fundamental research” nor “industrial research” according to the definitions laid down by the EEA. In view of the complainant, the projects are even far beyond pre-competitive development activity. “Turborouter projects are aimed at developing software programs that are developed in close co-operation with a limited number of users, and in parallel is actively marketed towards any maritime company in need of such program”.’

| 2) | ‘As the Turborouter projects have received public aid and where in the R&D programs it has been stated that reports will be made available for any party interested, it is a breach of the regulations to give Marintek the proprietary rights to sell and market the program. In view of the complainantthis confirms the argument that Turborouter is a commercial product far beyond any R&D stage.’ |
| --- | --- |

2)

‘As the Turborouter projects have received public aid and where in the R&D programs it has been stated that reports will be made available for any party interested, it is a breach of the regulations to give Marintek the proprietary rights to sell and market the program. In view of the complainantthis confirms the argument that Turborouter is a commercial product far beyond any R&D stage.’

| 3) | ‘In calculating the aid intensities, the RCN has used the pro forma funding assumed in the R&D application to be given by the aid receiving firm.’ The complainant claimed neither to have seen any documentation that the firms actually contributed with their own resources to the alleged funds, nor any audited reports where such contribution is proven. ‘For many projects in the maritime sectors the aid receivers are supposed to chip in their own contribution, but quite often there is in actual fact very little man time hours or any other costs that the receivers chip in.’ |
| --- | --- |

3)

‘In calculating the aid intensities, the RCN has used the pro forma funding assumed in the R&D application to be given by the aid receiving firm.’ The complainant claimed neither to have seen any documentation that the firms actually contributed with their own resources to the alleged funds, nor any audited reports where such contribution is proven. ‘For many projects in the maritime sectors the aid receivers are supposed to chip in their own contribution, but quite often there is in actual fact very little man time hours or any other costs that the receivers chip in.’

3.   The four projects related to the software programme Turborouter supported with RCN funds

a)   Description of the projects

1)   Project 40049 — Strategic activities within maritime transport and logistics (The first version of the software programme Turborouter)

Together with the Centre for International Economy and Shipping (SIØS), which is an integral part of the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Marintek applied to the RCN for support for the project ‘Strategic activities within maritime transport and logistics’ under the ‘Strategic Institute Programme’ (SIP) in 1995. SIP was a programme for long term research, characterised by a large proportion of fundamental research, but strategic in its orientation to serve future needs of industry. Under SIP, research projects could receive public financing up to 100 %.

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, due to limited funds available under this programme, the RCN re-classified the project as a ‘three-year strategic competence development project’ under the sub-programme ‘Short Sea Shipping’ (1995-1998) within the Industrial R&D Programme. The whole project was re-classified as industrial research although some activities constituted fundamental research.

Project 40049 ‘Strategic activities within maritime transport and logistics’ was broad in concept and covered several sub-projects. The first version of the pilot software Turborouter was developed in the first year of research of one of the sub-projects called ‘Methods and analytical tools for design and operation of integrated transport and logistics chains’.

Nowadays, Turborouter is a tool (7) for optimising vessel fleet scheduling, i.e. to decide which vessels to assign different cargoes to. The design philosophy has been to combine the knowledge and experience of the planners with the calculating capabilities of the computer. Optimisation software implemented on a computer can calculate millions of alternatives in only a few seconds but tend to have restricted ability to handle all practical constraints that occur in real life. Turborouter is based on electronic sea charts where scheduling information can be displayed. Other key elements of Turborouter include a database for vessels, ports, cargoes, etc; automatic calculation of port-to-port distances; vessel position reports and automatic update of estimated time of arrival; sophisticated optimisation routines for fleet scheduling; schedule visualisation or schedule calculator for manual planning.

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, out of the total NOK 10,5 million budget for Project 40049, the RCN contributed NOK 4,6 million, the Norwegian Ship-owners' Association (NSA) NOK 1,4 million and Marintek NOK 4,5 million.

The table below recapitulates the costs of the project and its financing of the project in NOK (8):

| Costs | | | Financing | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Personal and indirect costs | 8 700 000 | | Own financing | 4 500 000 |
| Purchase of R&D | 600 000 | | RCN | 6 000 000 |
| Equipment | 450 000 | | Total | 10 500 000 |
| Other operating costs | 750 000 | | | |
| Total | 10 500 000 | | | |

Costs

Financing

Personal and indirect costs

8 700 000

Own financing

4 500 000

Purchase of R&D

600 000

RCN

6 000 000

Equipment

450 000

Total

10 500 000

Other operating costs

750 000

Total

10 500 000

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the project costs for the sub-project ‘Methods and analytical tools for design and operation of integrated transport and logistics chains’ amounted to NOK 5,1 million. The state support for it amounted to NOK 2,24 million.

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the RCN selected several projects related to the development of the software package Turborouter for R&D support. According to the RCN, even though they had elements of industrial research, these projects were classified as ‘pre-competitive development activity’. The RCN considered that the results from each of these projects were company specific prototype demonstrators which would need considerable further in-house development to become day-to-day tools in the companies' operations.

2)   Project 138811 — AlgOpt

The aim of this project (9) was to develop and carry out practical tests of algorithms to calculate the optimal utilisation of a fleet of ships, given the obligations to load cargoes for several customers, the requirements as to when cargoes must be loaded and discharged in the destination port, the possibility of carrying joint cargoes of a limited number of bulk goods on each voyage as well as limitations that mean that not all the vessels involved are suitable for serving all customers or all ports.

The overreaching objective of AlgOpt was that the algorithms should be integrated into a software concept that would offer users full control and the possibility of overriding the suggestions made by the algorithms. The software should help decision-makers to combine their own experience with the ability of the numerical processes to test a number of possibilities rapidly and in a manner that offers the best possible basis for making decisions.

The principal activities of the Project AlgOpt were the definition of user dialogues and criteria for good capacity utilisation; the development of algorithms for working out optimal voyage combinations; the testing of algorithms and the follow-up and documentation of benefits.

According to the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Project AlgOpt was only a pre-study defining the user requirements and investigation of the feasibility of using Turborouter for the contract partner, the company Beltship Management AS. Total costs amounted to NOK 925 000. The project was classified as pre-competitive research. The financing was split between the RCN (NOK 300 000) and private funds from participating companies (NOK 625 000). The table below recapitulates the costs of the project as well as its financing (10):

| Costs | | | Financing | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Personal and indirect costs | 545 000 | | Own financing | 625 000 |
| Purchase of R&D | 380 000 | | RCN | 300 000 |
| Other operating costs | | | Total | 925 000 |
| Total | 925 000 | | | |

Costs

Financing

Personal and indirect costs

545 000

Own financing

625 000

Purchase of R&D

380 000

RCN

300 000

Other operating costs

Total

925 000

Total

925 000

3)   Project 144265 — Shiplog II

The Shiplog project mainly dealt with transport at sea. This project (11) should use the results of a previous project called Shiplog (which did not involve the use of Turborouter) to focus on the requirements for door-to-door delivery of goods, when transport at sea is a key element. The objectives of the project were:

| — | to support interaction between parties involved in door-to-door transport. This objective was shared by the EU proposal ‘D2D’, which aimed at demonstrating an integrated management and communication system for door-to-door intermodal freight transport operation, |
| --- | --- |

—

to support interaction between parties involved in door-to-door transport. This objective was shared by the EU proposal ‘D2D’, which aimed at demonstrating an integrated management and communication system for door-to-door intermodal freight transport operation,

| — | to demonstrate the communication of information between software systems by using XML (12) messages, |
| --- | --- |

—

to demonstrate the communication of information between software systems by using XML (12) messages,

| — | to demonstrate how TurboRouter could be integrated in a door-to-door transport service. |
| --- | --- |

—

to demonstrate how TurboRouter could be integrated in a door-to-door transport service.

The project should utilise the results obtained in other projects such as Intermodal Portal, Themis, D2D, INTRA, INFRATRANS, TRANSDATA or INFOLOG.

The activities of the project included:

| 1. | Methodology for modelling business processes which concerned the evaluation of business processes required in door-to-door transport. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Methodology for modelling business processes which concerned the evaluation of business processes required in door-to-door transport.

| 2. | The use of XML messages in system communication, which should specify the requirements for system communication and will implement XML messages supporting the exchange of information. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The use of XML messages in system communication, which should specify the requirements for system communication and will implement XML messages supporting the exchange of information.

| 3. | Development of demonstrator of door-to-door transport, which should implement an Internet application demonstrating a door-to-door transport operation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Development of demonstrator of door-to-door transport, which should implement an Internet application demonstrating a door-to-door transport operation.

| 4. | Integrating Transport Chain Management System (TCMS) and TurboRouter, which should specify the interface and demonstrate the exchange of information between TurboRouter and the TCMS demonstrator. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Integrating Transport Chain Management System (TCMS) and TurboRouter, which should specify the interface and demonstrate the exchange of information between TurboRouter and the TCMS demonstrator.

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, this project failed to achieve its objective because TCMS and Turborouter could not be satisfactorily integrated.

The RCN classified this project as pre-competitive development and awarded it state aid for an amount of NOK 2,15 million out of the NOK 6,2 million of the total project costs. The project received funds from the NSA for an amount of NOK 750 000 which were channelled through the RCN. The remainder was financed by the contract partner of this project, the company United European Car Carriers AS (UECC), and other participating companies. The table below recapitulates both the costs and the financing of the project (13):

| Costs | | | Financing | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Personal and indirect costs | 800 000 | | Own financing | 800 000 |
| Purchase of R&D | 2 150 000 | | Other private means | 3 250 000 |
| Equipment | 100 000 | | RCN | 2 150 000 |
| Other operating costs | 3 150 000 | | Total | 6 200 000 |
| Total | 6 200 000 | | | |

Costs

Financing

Personal and indirect costs

800 000

Own financing

800 000

Purchase of R&D

2 150 000

Other private means

3 250 000

Equipment

100 000

RCN

2 150 000

Other operating costs

3 150 000

Total

6 200 000

Total

6 200 000

4)   Project 144214 — Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping

The pre-competitive research project ‘Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping’ aimed at developing algorithms for advanced optimisation and scheduling of very complex shipping operations. The Norwegian authorities have explained that the library of algorithms is very trade and company specific and must thus be company-owned and not part of the standard Turborouter ‘tool kit’. Nevertheless, it may give rise to development of additional Turborouter functionalities demanded by the applications development.

The overall project costs amounted to NOK 7 million, of which NOK 1,5 million were covered by the RCN, NOK 805 000 by the NSA and the remaining amount of NOK 4,7 million by private funds. The company Beltship Management AS was the contract partner of this project.

The table below recapitulates the costs and the financing of the project (14):

| Costs | | | Financing | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Personal and indirect costs | 4 100 000 | | Own financing | 1 950 000 |
| Purchase of R&D | 2 900 000 | | Other private means | 2 750 000 |
| Equipment | | | RCN | 2 300 000 |
| Other operating costs | | | Total | 7 000 000 |
| Total | 7 000 000 | | | |

Costs

Financing

Personal and indirect costs

4 100 000

Own financing

1 950 000

Purchase of R&D

2 900 000

Other private means

2 750 000

Equipment

RCN

2 300 000

Other operating costs

Total

7 000 000

Total

7 000 000

b)   The beneficiaries

The projects addressed in the current Decision have been developed in cooperation between the research institute Marintek and several private companies. Two of the private companies were the contract partners of the concerned projects and are therefore addressed in the following. In this context the other companies involved in the said projects could also be considered as potential beneficiaries for the purposes of this Decision.

1)   Marintek

Marintek is a research institution, 56 % owned by the SINTEF group, a private research foundation, 26 % by the Norwegian Shipowners' Association, 9 % by Det Norske Veritas, an independent foundation, and the rest by several shareholders in the maritime community.

Marintek delivers marine technology research and development services. Together with the Department of Marine Technology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), it constitutes the Marine Technology Centre in Trondheim. The Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute does research, development and technical consulting in the maritime sector for industry and the public sector. The Institute develops and verifies technological solutions for the shipping and maritime equipment industries and for offshore petroleum production. Marintek's business areas include shipping, shipbuilding, offshore marine industry and marine industry (15).

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, Marintek has developed several software packages. Most of them are only for ‘internal use’ but others are made available as commercial products through marketing alliances.

2)   United European Car Carriers (UECC)

UECC (16) is a provider of logistics and sea transportation services for the vehicle manufacturing industry in Europe with an extensive route network to transport all sorts of rolling cargo to most destinations in Europe.

According to current figures, UECC is a short sea operator which transports approximately 1,8 million new vehicles a year on behalf of the global automotive industry. As a major logistics provider, UECC is able to offer total management solutions, which encompass the full transport chain, from the manufacturing plant through to the final retail destination. In addition to a fleet of over 20 specially-designed vessels, UECC also operate the own vehicle handling centres and provide full tracking information at unit level using the latest IT-systems.

UECC is owned in equal shares by Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK) of Tokyo, one of the world's largest shipping companies, and by Wallenius Lines of Stockholm, a Swedish shipping enterprise.

3)   Beltship Management AS

Beltship Management is a company which operates a highly specialised fleet of so-called self-unloading bulk carriers. Beltship Management was established in 1997 as a 50/50 partnership between Jebsens Shipping Company and Heidelberger Zement Group of Germany. The company is located in Bergen, Norway. Beltships has 9 vessels at their disposal, mainly with independently operated belt self-unloaders. Most of the vessels operate in the North Sea basin and in the Mediterranean. Beltship Management has been involved in the development of TurboRouter since 1999, and has used the tool for optimizing fleet scheduling in the North Sea basin since then (17).

4.   Description of the relationship between the four grants of aid and the Norwegian aid scheme for industrial R&D programmes

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the four grants of aid covered by the present Decision received aid within the framework of the aid scheme ‘Industrial R&D Programmes’ (brukerstyrte forskningsprogrammer).

a)   The aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes

Prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, the Norwegian authorities established an aid scheme called ‘Industrial R&D Programmes’ (brukerstyrte forskningsprogrammer) which was administered by the RCN. According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, this scheme covered awards of aid in the form of direct grants to research programmes of 3-5 years duration, either thematic or sector-oriented, implemented through a variable number of projects.

In December 1994, the Authority adopted a Decision on several aid schemes for research and development existing in Norway prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, amongst others, the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programme (brukerstyrte forskningsprogrammer, case no 93-183). In this Decision, the Authority proposed appropriate measures to bring the scheme in line with the state aid rules of the EEA Agreement (18). In this Decision, the Authority noted that:

‘Clear guidelines or specific provisions of a binding nature have not been developed for the scheme. Awards of aid are granted at the discretion of the responsible authorities within the framework of the Research Council's society rules.’

In order to bring the scheme in line with the state aid rules, the Authority proposed to Norway, in particular, the introduction of detailed provisions which would ensure that awards of aid were granted in accordance with the principles laid down in Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines.

The Decision reads as follows:

| ‘1(i) | The Norwegian authorities shall introduce detailed provisions for the schemes listed in Annex I to this decision which ensure that awards of aid are granted in accordance with the principles laid down in Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines. This means that the provisions must





  — | distinguish between the different types of R&D activities by providing definitions for basic industrial research as well as for applied research and development in line with the provisions of paragraph 14.1(2) of the State Aid Guidelines, |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘1(i)

—

distinguish between the different types of R&D activities by providing definitions for basic industrial research as well as for applied research and development in line with the provisions of paragraph 14.1(2) of the State Aid Guidelines,

| — | define the aid intensities in such a way that as a general rule aid for basic industrial research does not exceed 50 % and that aid for applied research and development does not exceed 25 % of the eligible costs. These intensities can, if so desired, be adjusted according to the principles laid down in the State Aid Guidelines and |
| --- | --- |

—

define the aid intensities in such a way that as a general rule aid for basic industrial research does not exceed 50 % and that aid for applied research and development does not exceed 25 % of the eligible costs. These intensities can, if so desired, be adjusted according to the principles laid down in the State Aid Guidelines and

| — | define the eligibility costs for the purpose of calculating the aid intensity in compliance with the definitions in paragraph 14.5(1) of the State Aid Guidelines.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

define the eligibility costs for the purpose of calculating the aid intensity in compliance with the definitions in paragraph 14.5(1) of the State Aid Guidelines.’

Norway accepted the appropriate measures proposed by the Authority by letter dated 19 December 1994. The acceptance of appropriate measures implied that the award of aid under the Industrial R&D Programme would be done in accordance with the provisions of the Authority's R&D Guidelines as they were drafted in 1994. Following the wording of the Authority's Decision No 217/94/COL, this is in particular the case when it concerns the definition of the different types of R&D activities, the aid intensities and the eligible costs.

In the framework of the current preliminary investigation, the Norwegian authorities have stated that, as a follow-up of the acceptance of the appropriate measures, the RCN developed provisions to ensure that aid was awarded in compliance with Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines on R&D aid. This set of rules is called DOKSY, ‘Aid intensities in accordance with EEA rules’. According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, Doksy is a set of provisions adopted by the RCN which correspond mainly to the R&D Guidelines of the Authority. It serves as the basis guidelines for the granting of R&D aid by the RCN.

‘Aid intensities in accordance with EEA rules’

It is regrettable that the Norwegian authorities did not provide the amended version of the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes to the Authority for its review (19). Notwithstanding this, it is the understanding of the Authority that the Norwegian authorities amended the set of rules called Doksy in accordance with the amendments of Chapter 14 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines.

19

b)   The Research Council of Norway

The aid granted to the undertakings for the four projects was granted by the RCN, which is the responsible body in charge of the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes.

According to its own statement (20), the RCN is a national strategic body and funding agency for research and innovation activities. The RCN covers all fields of research and innovation and works together with research institutions as well as the private and public sectors to reach the national financial goals and quality targets set in this area.

20

The RCN plays a vital role in developing and implementing the country's national research strategy. It acts as:

| — | a government adviser, identifying present and future needs for knowledge and research, and recommending national priorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

a government adviser, identifying present and future needs for knowledge and research, and recommending national priorities;

| — | a funding agency for research programmes and independent projects, strategic programmes at research institutions, and Norwegian participation in international research activities. The RCN has an annual budget of some NOK 4,5 billion and utilises specifically-targeted funding schemes to help translate national research policy goals into action; |
| --- | --- |

—

a funding agency for research programmes and independent projects, strategic programmes at research institutions, and Norwegian participation in international research activities. The RCN has an annual budget of some NOK 4,5 billion and utilises specifically-targeted funding schemes to help translate national research policy goals into action;

| — | a co-ordinator, initiating networks and promoting co-operation between research institutions, ministries, business and industry, public agencies and enterprises, other sources of funding, and users of research. |
| --- | --- |

—

a co-ordinator, initiating networks and promoting co-operation between research institutions, ministries, business and industry, public agencies and enterprises, other sources of funding, and users of research.

II.   APPRECIATION

1.   Introduction: the applicable legal framework

According to the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the four projects which are assessed in this Decision were granted R&D aid in the framework of the Industrial R&D Programme (brukerstyrte forskningsprogrammer, case no 93-183). As mentioned above, the Industrial R&D Programme was already in place before 1994. Following the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway, the Authority assessed the Industrial R&D Programme together with other existing aid schemes and adopted Decision No 217/94/COL in December 1994. In this Decision, the Authority proposed appropriate measures with respect to the Industrial R&D Programme to mainly require that awards of aid would be granted in accordance with the principles laid down in Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines.

brukerstyrte forskningsprogrammer

The Norwegian authorities accepted the proposed appropriate measures. Thus, thereafter, any grant of aid under the Industrial R&D Programme had to be done in accordance with the R&D rules applicable when the Authority adopted Decision No 217/94/COL.

The R&D rules applicable when the Authority adopted Decision No 217/94/COL were Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines as adopted in 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the R&D Guidelines of 1994 (21)).

21

Hence, by definition, any aid granted under the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes which does not comply with the provisions of the version of the R&D Guidelines applicable in 1994, when the Authority proposed the appropriate measures which Norway accepted, falls outside the scope of application of the scheme. Accordingly, such a measure would constitute new individual aid and would as such need to be notified to the Authority individually.

In this context it is important to note that the present decision only concerns the application of the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes to the four concrete projects identified as relating to the development of the software programme Turborouter on which a complaint was lodged in 2002.

Should the granting of aid to the four questioned projects not be covered by the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes as explained above, each of the projects would need to be assessed individually. In this assessment, the Authority would have to determine whether state aid was granted in each of the projects and whether this aid could have been considered compatible aid on the basis of the provisions of the R&D Guidelines applicable at the time where the grants were given or directly on the basis of the rules of the EEA Agreement.

As far as Project 40049 ‘Strategic activities within maritime transport and logistics’, which led to the development of the first software programme Turborouter, is concerned, the aid was granted by a decision of the RCN of December 1995. The applicable rules governing the granting of R&D aid were Chapter 14 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines as originally adopted in Decision No 4/94/COL. In other words, the provisions of the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes as amended following the appropriate measures of the Authority should correspond to the provisions of the generally applicable R&D Guidelines in 1995, when aid was granted to Project 40049. Thus, should the granting of aid to this project not have been done in compliance with these rules, the aid will have to be considered incompatible aid, unless its compatibility can be established on the basis of the state aid provisions in Article 61(3) (a), (b) or (c) of the EEA Agreement directly.

‘Strategic activities within maritime transport and logistics’

As far as the other three projects assessed in this Decision are concerned, they received aid on the basis of decisions taken by the RCN in 2000. Prior to that date, the Authority had amended Chapter 14 of the Guidelines with Decision No 53/96/COL adopted on 15.5.1996 to incorporate the amended Community Framework for state aid for research and development (22). Thus, an individual assessment of the granting of aid to Projects 138811 ‘AlgOpt’, 144265 ‘Shiplog II’ and 144214 ‘Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping’ as individual aid should be done in accordance with the provisions of the version of Chapter 14 of the Guidelines existing since May 1996 or directly on the basis of the state aid rules in Article 61(3) (a), (b) or (c) of the EEA Agreement.

22

‘AlgOpt’

‘Shiplog II’

‘Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping’

2.   State aid assessment of the projects

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement states that:

‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement’.

Thus, in order for a measure to be considered state aid, it must constitute a selective advantage in favour of certain undertakings, be granted through state resources, distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.

Firstly, the measure must confer on certain undertakings an advantage that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of business and relieves them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets. By paying grants to support certain R&D projects, the RCN confers an economic advantage only on the promoters of the selected R&D projects.

Secondly, the advantage must be granted by the State or through state resources. The RCN develops and implements the country's national research strategy and specially acts as a funding agency for research. In particular, for the development of the Maritime research programme, the RCN managed funds received from the Ministries of Trade and Industry and of Finance. Thus, the public funds channelled through the RCN and which were obtained from the above-mentioned ministries constitute state resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

Thirdly, the measure must distort competition. Since there are other Norwegian undertakings which compete with the promoters of the selected R&D projects that may not receive support from the RCN to carry out their R&D projects, the granting of aid has the effect of distorting competition.

Moreover, the beneficiaries of the financing are active in sectors open to competition within the EEA. Therefore, the funds granted by the RCN for the development of R&D projects affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.

For these reasons, the grants given by the RCN to the projects related to the development of the software programme Turborouter constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

Whether the four projects fall within the existing aid scheme will be assessed under a).

Under b), the Authority will assess whether the aid grants, if outside the existing aid scheme, nevertheless are in compliance with the state aid rules.

a)   Assessment of the projects on the basis of the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes

The RCN granted financing to the above-mentioned projects in the framework of the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes, which the Authority classified as state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement in its Decision No 217/94/COL of 1 December 1994.

As mentioned above, the Norwegian authorities accepted the appropriate measures proposed by the Authority to bring the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes in line with the rules of the EEA Agreement in a letter dated 19 December 1994. They accordingly committed to amend the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes in accordance with the R&D Guidelines of 1994.

In the following, the Authority will assess whether the granting of aid to the four projects in question falls within the provisions of the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes as amended in accordance with R&D Guidelines of 1994.

As a preliminary remark, the Authority would like to point out that, in general terms, according to the information available to the Authority at this stage, the RCN does not seem to control how the own contributions of the beneficiaries are distributed to various activities and whether they are effectively disbursed. This type of control seems crucial in the determination of whether the beneficiaries receive aid in the amount they are entitled to or whether, on the contrary, they are misusing the RCN's research grants.

1)   The development of the first version of the software programme Turborouter

On the basis of the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the RCN classified Project 40049 Strategic activities within maritime transport and logistics as industrial research. According to Point 14.1.(2) of the R&D Guidelines of 1994, basic industrial research is defined as ‘original theoretical or experimental work whose objective is to achieve new or better understanding of the laws of science and engineering as they might apply to an industrial sector or the activities of a particular enterprise.’

‘original theoretical or experimental work whose objective is to achieve new or better understanding of the laws of science and engineering as they might apply to an industrial sector or the activities of a particular enterprise.’

Although, according to the information submitted by the RCN, the project consisted of activities which were classified as fundamental research as well as other activities which were classified as industrial research, the project as a whole was considered as industrial research.

The development of the first software programme Turborouter, a tool useful for companies to optimise vessel fleet scheduling, was developed as the result of one of the sub-projects covered by Project 40049. Further, the project was exclusively carried out by the research institute Marintek.

Although Turborouter has become a software tool which seems to be appreciated on the market, the RCN funds allocated to Project 40049 devoted to the sub-project ‘Methods and analytical tools for design and operation of integrated transport and logistics chains’ only led to the development of the first software programme Turborouter, in the application of industrial research. Obviously since the first software was developed in the first phase of the sub-project back in early 1996, the software has been further improved and also marketed. However, it seems that the granting of aid to project 40049 which resulted, amongst others, in the development of the first software Turborouter, cannot by this fact be considered in relation to market proximity to be beyond the stage of industrial research as it was classified by the RCN.

As industrial research, Project 40049 was granted aid from the RCN for an amount corresponding to 43,8 % of the costs of the project. This intensity is below the maximum aid intensity allowed by the Guidelines which read ‘the level of aid for basic industrial research should not be more than 50 % of the gross costs of the project or programme.’

‘the level of aid for basic industrial research should not be more than 50 % of the gross costs of the project or programme.’

For the purpose of calculating the intensity of aid from R&D activities, Section 14.5.1 of R&D Guidelines of 1994 foresaw the following eligible costs:

| — | ‘personnel costs (researchers, technicians, other supporting staff) calculated as a sum of the total amount needed to carry out the project; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘personnel costs (researchers, technicians, other supporting staff) calculated as a sum of the total amount needed to carry out the project;

| — | other running costs calculated in the same way (costs of materials, supplies, etc.); |
| --- | --- |

—

other running costs calculated in the same way (costs of materials, supplies, etc.);

| — | instruments and equipment, land and buildings; |
| --- | --- |

—

instruments and equipment, land and buildings;

| — | consultancy and equivalent services including bought-in research, technical knowledge, patents, etc; |
| --- | --- |

—

consultancy and equivalent services including bought-in research, technical knowledge, patents, etc;

| — | additional overhead costs incurred directly as a result of the R&D project or programme being promoted.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

additional overhead costs incurred directly as a result of the R&D project or programme being promoted.’

It seems that the costs of the projects, as they were taken into account in the determination of the granting of aid, are a priori covered by the definition of eligible costs provided in the R&D Guidelines of 1994.

Therefore, it appears that the RCN had classified Project 40049 as basic industrial research in accordance with the provisions of the R&D Guidelines of 1994.

It is the preliminary opinion of the Authority that the granting of aid to Project 40049 falls within the scheme Industrial R&D Programme as amended on the basis of Chapter 14 of the Authority's R&D Guidelines of 1994. This preliminary opinion is however without prejudice to the Authority's final conclusion.

The complainant has further claimed that the research results had not been disseminated but the research institute Marintek, which developed the software programme Turborouter, had received the property rights to sell the programme.

The Authority would like to point out that under the R&D Guidelines of 1994, and accordingly under the provisions of the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes, there was no written obligation to disseminate the results of research as is the case for fundamental research under the currently applicable R&D Guidelines.

2)   The projects relating to the further use of the software programme Turborouter

In 2000, the RCN authorised the granting of R&D aid to three R&D projects which concerned the use and further development of the software programme Turborouter: Project 138811 ‘AlgOpt’, Project 144265 ‘Shiplog II’ and Project 144214 ‘Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping’.

‘AlgOpt’

‘Shiplog II’

‘Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping’

The Norwegian authorities have however indicated that there were other projects which involved the use and further development of the software programme Turborouter which did not receive any support from the RCN (23).

23

The RCN classified all three projects as pre-competitive research.

The complainant has claimed that these projects were far beyond pre-competitive development activities. In his opinion, the so-called Turborouter projects were aimed at developing software programmes developed in close co-operation with a limited number of users while in parallel being marketed towards other maritime companies in need of such programmes.

What in later versions of the R&D Guidelines has been named pre-competitive research largely corresponds to the definition of applied research and development within the meaning of the R&D Guidelines of 1994.

Point 14.1.(2) of the R&D Guidelines of 1994 distinguished between three categories of research: fundamental, basic industrial and applied research and development. According to this provision, applied research ‘covers investigation or experimental work based on the results of basic industrial research to acquire new knowledge to facilitate the attainment of specific practical objectives such as the creation of new products, production processes or services. It could normally be said to end with the creation of a first prototype.’ Development is considered to cover ‘work based on applied research aimed at establishing new or substantially improved products, production processes or services up to but not including industrial application and commercial exploitation.’

‘covers investigation or experimental work based on the results of basic industrial research to acquire new knowledge to facilitate the attainment of specific practical objectives such as the creation of new products, production processes or services. It could normally be said to end with the creation of a first prototype.

‘work based on applied research aimed at establishing new or substantially improved products, production processes or services up to but not including industrial application and commercial exploitation.’

On the basis of the information available to it at this stage of the procedure, the Authority is not in the position of ascertaining whether these projects were correctly classified as applied or pre-competitive research as will be shown below. In the following, the Authority will use the term ‘pre-competitive research’ when referring to applied research and pre-competitive research.

The complainant also claimed that the maximum aid intensities had not been respected due to the fact that the own capital contributions from the concerned companies were in reality lower than stated in the application forms.

The Authority will address these allegations below for each of the projects concerned.

a)   Project 138811 — AlgOpt

—   Doubts concerning the classification of the project

The Norwegian authorities explained that the AlgOpt project was a pre-study defining the user requirements and investigation of the feasibility of using Turborouter for Beltship Management, the contract partner of the project. According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, this project was considered as a sort of ‘pre-project’ to Project 144214, Library of Optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping, which will be addressed below.

On the basis of the information available at Marintek's website, the aim of the project was to develop and carry out practical tests of algorithms to calculate the optimal utilisation of a fleet of ships.

It is questionable whether this project goes beyond the stage of applied or pre-competitive research to constitute a commercial product. This application has been developed on the basis of the software programme Turborouter incorporating algorithms to calculate the optimal utilisation of Beltship Management's fleet. It is not clear to the Authority what would make the difference between the pre-competitive phase of the product and the final commercial product. The Authority has doubts as to what is the borderline between a prototype and a commercial product in the case at hand. It is not clear from the information provided whether the result of the project financed with aid granted by the RCN was developed further before it could be used in the daily operation of the company.

—   Doubts concerning the financing of the project and the aid intensities

The Authority would like to point out that there is a slight discrepancy between the figures provided by the Norwegian authorities in the written information submitted to the Authority concerning the financing of the AlgOpt project and the information presented in the application forms for grant to the RCN also forwarded by the Norwegian authorities as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |

The Norwegian authorities are invited to comment on these figures. They are also invited to provide the correct information concerning the amount of money which the Norwegian Shipowners' Association invested in the AlgOpt project which is included in the amount granted through the RCN in the table above. This information is of the essence when it comes to assessing the aid intensity of the project.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Following the arguments of the complainant, there is a doubt as to whether the real research cost of the project corresponded to NOK 380 000 instead of the amount claimed by Beltship Management in its application for a grant from the RCN, i.e. NOK 925 000.

i.e.

This doubt is substantiated by comparing the figures concerning the costs of the project and its financing. Beltship Management contributes with own means amounting to NOK 625 000 to the financing of the project. According to the information contained in the application form to the RCN, this sum is divided as NOK 80 000 in cash and NOK 545 000 as contribution in kind. The later corresponds exactly to the personnel and indirect costs of the project whereas the cash contribution together with the aid granted by the RCN (NOK 300 000) pays the purchase of R&D which costs NOK 380 000.

It seems that it is Marintek, the research institute that developed the first software programme Turborouter, which had the necessary know-how and technological competence to do the project. Therefore, it appears rational to assume that most of the work would have been carried out by its own staff. This would imply, in principle, that the participation of the staff of Beltship Management, which was the final user of the software, would have most probably been related to the definition of the users needs and/or to some degree of testing.

Although it seems questionable to what extent the staff of the company can carry out activities classified as research activities, the R&D Guidelines of 1994 did not require that staff be employed solely on the research activities for these costs to be eligible for aid.

Notwithstanding this, comparison of the costs of the project shows that the total contribution of Beltship Management's staff to the project which amounted to 545 000 NOK is more important and costly than the development of the R&D which was acquired from Marintek for a total of 380 000 NOK. It seems questionable to what extent the staff of the company has carried out research activities or whether these costs rather concerned normal operational activities of the company. The Authority would appreciate documentary evidence which can substantiate that the hours behind these research costs were actually used in the project.

To the extent that Beltship's contribution in kind may not have corresponded to research costs, the overall costs of the research project would be lower and the aid intensities accordingly higher.

b)   Project 144265 — Shiplog II

—   Doubts concerning the classification of the project

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the main objective of Shiplog II was to develop a pilot demonstrator of door-to-door logistics management in the shipping of chemicals and cars.

According to Point 14.1.(2) of the R&D Guidelines of 1994, applied research covers investigation or experimental work based on the results of basic industrial research which could normally be said to end with the creation of a first prototype. The Authority has doubts whether the definition of applied research covers cases such as this where the pilot demonstrator or prototype seems to be very close to what the final product would have been. According to the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the integration of the Transport Chain Management System (TCMS) and Turborouter, the main objective of this project, failed.

—   Doubts concerning the financing of the project and the aid intensities

A comparison of the figures corresponding to the project costs and its financing shows that the amount granted by the RCN equals the sum necessary to purchase R&D. Further, the contribution of UECC's (own financing), the company in charge of the project, corresponds to the personnel and indirect costs. The rest of the gross costs of the project covers equipment and other operating costs and equals the financing brought by the other companies participating in the project.

The Norwegian authorities have contended in their letter dated 22 August 2005 that ‘in order to promote cooperation [between private companies and public R&D institutions] we may in some calls for proposals for industry-driven projects, state that the application will be evaluated favourably if the external purchases of R&D from research institutes (institutes or universities) are at least as high as the support given by the RCN.’
   (24)

‘in order to promote cooperation [between private companies and public R&D institutions] we may in some calls for proposals for industry-driven projects, state that the application will be evaluated favourably if the external purchases of R&D from research institutes (institutes or universities) are at least as high as the support given by the RCN.’

24

The Authority questions whether the figures for the total project costs have been inflated to seemingly obtain more financing. It is questionable whether this approach has led beneficiaries to include part of their normal operating costs in the R&D costs allocated to the research projects financed with support from the RCN.

Should this be the case and should the R&D project in reality only correspond to the purchased R&D, the intensity of the aid granted would have to be revised. It would then be necessary to assess whether the revised aid intensity falls within the parameters of the Industrial R&D Programme.

c)   Project 144214 — Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping

—   Doubts concerning the classification of the project

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, in this specific project the requirements of Beltship Management and another company, Iver Ships, were used as an example to gain some more experience from this kind of scheduling software in shipping organisations. This could have been of great value to Marintek's further development of Turborouter. Even if the requirements of these two companies would not be the same as for other shipping companies, it would be possible to build on some main principles in the used algorithms.

The Authority has difficulties in understanding which are the determining features of this project in classifying it as applied research and not as a commercial project.

During the preliminary investigation, the Norwegian authorities have argued that the result of the activities in any of the projects classified as applied or pre-competitive research cannot be exploited commercially and sold to other users because they are company-specific applications. According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, Turborouter will never be an ‘off-the-shelf’ product but will always need, by definition, further adaptations.

The Norwegian authorities acknowledge the difficulty in distinguishing between a commercial and a pre-competitive product where the result of the activity is not a physical product but a new, altered or improved process, service or procedure to be used internally. In their opinion, the activity that has created these results may be classified as a pre-competitive development activity if it is not part of the day-to-day operation of the company and not part of routine or periodic changes or improvements.

The borderline between a pilot project, which could not be used commercially, and a commercial final product seems very diffuse in the case at hand because the software needs to be adapted anew for each new application specific to each final user. The Authority questions to what extent the further development of the software programme Turborouter for use in developing applications which serve concrete needs for the final users can be covered by the definition of applied research. It is not clear to the Authority what would be considered as a commercial product and what would fall under a prototype regarding the concrete application of the software programme Turborouter to the specific needs of a given company.

The Authority doubts whether, due to the specific characteristics of the software programme Turborouter, the development of each new application necessarily goes beyond the stage of pilot project to be a new commercial product or whether, on the contrary, it constitutes applied research.

Furthermore, although the project as such was considered pre-competitive research, the RCN classified certain activities within Project 144214 ‘Library of optimisation routines for scheduling of shipping’ such as map chart status or the writing and publishing of articles as industrial research. The correctness of this classification seems doubtful.

—   Doubts concerning the financing of the project and the aid intensities

As was the case of the previously mentioned projects, the comparison of the figures provided for as the cost and financing of the project raises doubts as to whether the project only concerns research activities or whether it covers part of the operational costs of the company, in this case of Beltship Management and Iver Ships.

From the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, it seems that the object of the project was to allow Marintek to use the two companies as an example to gain some more experience from this kind of scheduling software in shipping organisations. In principle, this would imply that the majority of the research work will be done by Marintek itself. It is the understanding of the Authority that this research done by Marintek is covered by the rubric ‘Purchase of R&D’ in the costs of the project and amounts to NOK 2 900 000. It follows logically that the work of the personnel has an auxiliary function, to provide the researchers with the experiences acquired ‘on the job’ while using the software tool Turborouter. In the understanding of the Authority, this information should serve as a basis for the research of Marintek and should be processed into new algorithms for advanced optimisation and scheduling of shipping operations. It does not seem that the aim of the project was the development of a given prototype or pilot demonstrator. In such a situation, it seems unusual that the costs of personnel and indirect costs are higher than the cost of purchasing R&D.

The Authority welcomes any comment regarding this issue.

3)   The necessity to open the formal investigation procedure

On the basis of the information available at this stage of the procedure, the Authority is not in the position of ascertaining whether these projects were correctly classified as pre-competitive development activities or whether, on the contrary, they were already too close to the market to be eligible for state aid.

Furthermore, the Authority has doubts concerning the financing of the projects, in particular regarding the effective disbursement of the own contributions in kind of the beneficiaries of the projects.

In light of the above, the Authority has doubts both as to whether the above-mentioned projects have received aid in compliance with the R&D Guidelines of 1994 and as to whether the beneficiaries have used the aid in contravention of the accepted appropriate measures on the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes. On the basis of the definition in Article 1(g) in Part II of Protocol 3, aid used by the beneficiary in contravention of a decision taken pursuant to Article 4(3) or Article 7(3) or (4) constitutes misuse of aid. This definition covers, in the Authority's view, individual aid awards within a scheme approved by the Authority by means of appropriate measures.

According to Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority shall decide to initiate the formal investigation procedure where, after a preliminary investigation, it finds that doubts are raised as to the compatibility of a measure with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, according to Article 16 in Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority may in cases of misuse of aid open the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3.

With regard to the correct classification of the projects and the respective aid intensities, should the Authority find out in the course of this formal investigation that the above-mentioned projects have received aid which was not awarded on the basis of the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes, it will consider these projects as individual aid awards which were not notified to the Authority in due time. Any aid which is put into effect in contravention of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3, i.e. that was not notified and authorised by the Authority prior to being put into effect, is considered unlawful aid by virtue of Article 1(f) in Part II of the same Protocol.

Both in the case of misuse of aid and of the granting of unlawful aid which is incompatible with the state aid rules of the EEA Agreement, the aid will have to be recovered from the beneficiaries.

b)   Assessment of the projects as individual aid grants

1)   Introduction

Should the granting of financial support by the RCN to the projects concerning the development of the software programme Turborouter not be covered by the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes, as assessed above, these measures will constitute individual aid and should have been notified in accordance with Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 and will have to be assessed individually.

2)   Compatibility

At this stage of the procedure, the Authority is not in the position of determining whether the granting of aid to the projects related to the further development of the software programme Turborouter can be considered compatible on the basis of the provisions of the R&D Guidelines as amended by the Authority with Decision No 53/96/COL (25). For this reason, in the following, the Authority will only recall provisions which may seem relevant for a possible assessment of these grants in light of the R&D Guidelines.

25

On the basis of the provisions of Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines ‘Aid for research and development’, aid granted to firms for R&D may be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement by virtue of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement which provides a derogation for aid that facilitates the development of certain economic activities as long as it does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

‘Aid for research and development’

State aid for R&D should serve as an incentive for firms to undertake research activities in addition to their normal day-to-day operations (26). In order to verify that the planned aid will induce firms to pursue research which they would not otherwise have pursued, the Authority takes particular account of quantifiable factors such as changes in R&D spending or in the number of people assigned to R&D activities, market failures, other additional costs connected with cross-border cooperation and other relevant factors.

26

When examining the compatibility of an aid for research and development, under the R&D Guidelines, the Authority pays special attention to the type of research carried out, the beneficiaries, the aid intensity or the accessibility to the results. The closer the aid is to the market, the more significant the distortive effect of the state aid may be.

In order to determine the proximity to the market of the aided R&D, the Authority makes a distinction between fundamental research, industrial research and pre-competitive development activity. By pre-competitive development activity is meant (27)
  ‘the shaping of the results of industrial research into a plan, arrangement or design for new, altered or improved products, processes or services, whether they are intended to be sold or used, including the creation of an initial prototype which could not be used commercially. It may include conceptual formulation and design of other products, processes or services and initial demonstration projects or pilot projects, provided that such projects cannot be converted or used for industrial applications or commercial exploitation’. The permissible gross aid intensity for such activities is fixed at 25 % of the eligible costs.

27

‘the shaping of the results of industrial research into a plan, arrangement or design for new, altered or improved products, processes or services, whether they are intended to be sold or used, including the creation of an initial prototype which could not be used commercially. It may include conceptual formulation and design of other products, processes or services and initial demonstration projects or pilot projects, provided that such projects cannot be converted or used for industrial applications or commercial exploitation’

According to Point 14.5.9 of the R&D Guidelines, in cases of R&D activity spanning industrial research and pre-competitive development activities, the permissible aid intensity will not normally exceed the weighted average of the permissible aid intensities applicable to the two types of research.

However, in the event of failure of the research concerned, the Authority, in line with past practice, may allow a higher level of aid intensity since the project's failure reduces the risk of competition and trade being distorted (28).

28

Under Annex II to Chapter 14, the R&D Guidelines, the Authority revised the concept of eligible costs for the purpose of calculating the aid intensity to cover:

| — | personnel costs (researchers, technicians and other supporting staff employed solely on the research activity) |
| --- | --- |

—

personnel costs (researchers, technicians and other supporting staff employed solely on the research activity)

| — | cost of instruments, equipment, and land and premises used solely and on a continual basis (except where transferred commercially) for the research activity |
| --- | --- |

—

cost of instruments, equipment, and land and premises used solely and on a continual basis (except where transferred commercially) for the research activity

| — | cost of consultancy and equivalent services used exclusively for the research activity, including the research, technical knowledge and patents, etc. bought from outside sources |
| --- | --- |

—

cost of consultancy and equivalent services used exclusively for the research activity, including the research, technical knowledge and patents, etc. bought from outside sources

| — | additional overheads incurred directly as a result of the research activity |
| --- | --- |

—

additional overheads incurred directly as a result of the research activity

| — | other operating expenses (e.g. cost of materials, supplies and similar products) incurred directly as a result of the research activity. |
| --- | --- |

—

other operating expenses (e.g. cost of materials, supplies and similar products) incurred directly as a result of the research activity.

Should the granting of aid to any of these projects not be considered compatible on the basis of the R&D Guidelines of 1996 or on another state aid provision of the EEA Agreement, any illegally granted aid will have to be recovered from the beneficiaries, pursuant to Article 14 of Protocol 3.

3.   Conclusion

In light of the above, the Authority has doubts as to whether all or any of the above-mentioned four projects have received aid in compliance with the R&D State Aid Guidelines.

In particular regarding the projects related to the further development of the software programme Turborouter, on the basis of the information available to it at this stage of the procedure, the Authority is not in the position of ascertaining whether these projects were correctly classified as pre-competitive development activities or whether, on the contrary, they were already too close to the market to be eligible for state aid.

The Authority has doubts regarding the real research costs of the projects. Should the Authority, in the framework of the current investigation, find out that they were lower than alleged in the application for funding to the RCN, the aid intensities will have to be reviewed.

Furthermore, the Authority also has doubts regarding the effective disbursement of all contributions in kind from the beneficiaries.

The two concerns mentioned above with respect to the pre-competitive research projects may lead to the conclusion that aid could have been granted for an amount exceeding 25 % of the real costs of the project. As far as the industrial research project is concerned, this percentage can reach 50 %. Any amount exceeding this figure not covered by the state aid rules on R&D aid might need to be recovered.

The Authority also doubts whether the beneficiaries have used the aid in contravention of the accepted appropriate measures on the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes.

Therefore, in accordance with Articles 4(4), 10 and following and 16 in Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority.

The Norwegian authorities should inform Marintek, Beltship Management, UECC and any other beneficiary of possible state aid by means of a copy of this Decision —

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement regarding the R&D aid granted by the Research Council of Norway in connection with the development of the software programme Turborouter.

Article 2

The Norwegian Government is invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement to submit its comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this decision.

Article 3

Other Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement and interested parties shall be informed by the publishing of a meaningful summary and the full text of this Decision in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of publication of this Decision.

Article 4

The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the recipients of the aid immediately.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 6

This Decision is authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 8 March 2006.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Bjørn T. GRYDELAND

President

Kurt JAEGER

College Member

---

(1)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’.

1

(2)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘the EEA Agreement’.

2

(3)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’.

3

(4)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘Protocol 3’.

4

(5)  Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid, Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ 1994 L 231, EEA Supplements 3.9.94 No 32, last amended on 14 December 2005, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Guidelines’.

5

(6)  Not yet published in the OJ or the EEA Supplement. Available at:

6

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/legaltexts/ms2decision.DOC. This Decision has been last amended by the Authority's Decision No 329/05/COL of 20.12.2005.

(7)  The following information has been obtained from the brochure TurboRouter Vessel schedule optimizing software, available at the website of Marintek: http://www.marintek.no

7

(8)  These figures have been obtained from the form submitted to the RCN for the application for a grant.

8

(9)  Information obtained from Marintek's website: http://www.marintek.no

9

(10)  These figures have been obtained from the form submitted to the RCN for the application for a grant.

10

(11)  Information obtained from Marintek's website.

11

(12)  XML (Extensible Mark-up Language) is a flexible way to create common information formats and share both the format and the data on the World Wide Web, intranets, and elsewhere. XML is a formal recommendation from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) similar to the language of today's Web pages, the Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML).

12

(13)  These figures have been obtained from the form submitted to the RCN for the application for a grant.

13

(14)  These figures have been obtained from the form submitted to the RCN for the application for a grant.

14

(15)  Information issued from Marintek's website: http://www.sintef.no/Content/page2____690.aspx.

15

(16)  Information issued from UECC's website: www.uecc.com.

16

(17)  Information issued from ‘TurboRouter, Vessel schedule optimizing software’, a publication from Marintek.

17

(18)  Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 217/94/COL of 1.12.1994. The schemes covered by this decision were: Industrial R&D Contracts (case 93-147) and Public R&D Contracts (case 93-182) granted by the SND and Industrial R&D Projects (case 93-181) and Industrial R&D Programs (case 93-183) granted by the RCN.

18

(19)  According to the Decision, ‘The Norwegian authorities must inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the adoption of such provisions [the appropriate measures], insofar as these involve state aid, before they are put into effect’.

19

(20)  Information taken from the website of the RCN at http://www.forskningsradet.no/english/

20

(21)  In January 1994, the Authority had taken Decision No 4/94/COL on the adoption and issuing of the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid (Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3). Chapter 14 thereof deals with Aid for research and development, which mainly corresponded to the Community framework for state aid for research and development. This Decision was published on the Official Journal L 231 of 3.9.1994, pages 1 to 84.

21

(22)  Published in the OJ C 45 of 17.2.1996, pages 5 to 16.

22

(23)  See chart ‘Projects involving development of Turborouter’ handed over by the RCN during the meeting with representatives of the Authority held in Oslo in September 2004.

23

(24)  See page 1 in the letter from the Norwegian authorities dated 22.8.2005.

24

(25)  Should the granting of R&D aid to Project 40049 fall outside the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes, its compatibility as individual aid can only be established on the basis of the EEA Agreement directly (see page 12 of this Decision).

25

(26)  See Section 14.7 Incentive effect of R&D aid in Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines, R&D Guidelines, as amended in 1996.

26

(27)  See Annex I to Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines, R&D Guidelines, as amended in 1996.

27

(28)  See Section 14.5.6 in Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines, R&D Guidelines, as amended in 1996.

28

---